City Frustrated by Lack of UP Communication and Cooperation But Powerless to Stop It –
The city has announced that Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza received an email from Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) representative Scott Moore informing the City that next week UPRR intends to start construction of a fence at the Davis Train Depot, blocking access to the Olive Drive neighborhood from the depot.
Early on Wednesday the Mayor informed the Vanguard that Union Pacific was doing something along the tracks, but had not given the city a firm answer as to what.
The city has now learned that the Railroad intends to build the 3800-,foot long fence which would be located on the south side of the railroad tracks extending from Richards Boulevard to the I-80 exit at Olive Drive.
Union Pacific Railroad has begun working along the tracks removing trees, shrubs and vegetation this week. Union Pacific Railroad further informed the city that it has filed a protest against the City’s application to construct an at-grade pedestrian/bike crossing at the depot, currently pending before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The City has repeatedly requested that UPRR not build this fence until the City’s at-grade crossing application is determined by the CPUC and a safe “state of the art” at-grade crossing can be built in conjunction with a safe fence.
The railroad had originally pledged to work with the city regarding the fence, but that was before the city lobbied the CCJPA to prevent the railroad giant from receiving public funding for the construction of the fence.
In August, the city formally submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to construct an at-grade pedestrian/bike crossing at the Davis Train Station, also known as the Southern Pacific Depot, to provide safe and convenient access between the Olive Drive neighborhood and the downtown/depot area.
The proposed crossing would consist of warning devices and gates at the main access point to the depot platform from the Olive Drive neighborhood. On the south side of the tracks there would be a pathway leading west to the existing gate openings to the two housing sites adjacent to the track and extending east to the extension of Hickory Lane. In addition, the City of Davis has requested an emergency vehicle-only access point in the vicinity of L Street connecting to Olive Drive.
Mayor Joe Krovoza noted that, “The City of Davis has a strong commitment to improving public safety over or under the railroad tracks.”
“Over the past 20 years Davis has invested millions of dollars of local money in providing safe access across Interstate 80 and the railroad tracks,” the Mayor said in a statement in the city’s press release. “Past projects have included the Mace Blvd. widening, Dave Pelz pedestrian/bike overcrossing, Pole Line Road vehicle/pedestrian/bike overcrossing, Richards Blvd. interchange improvements, Putah Creek pedestrian/bike undercrossing of I-80 and the railroad tracks and improvements at the train station. A safe crossing at the Depot represents the last access link between a residential area south of the tracks and the remainder of Davis. The residents of Olive Drive deserve safe access to the rest of town.”
Union Pacific has been clearly moving for some time to build the fence, but it became inevitable at the end of June when a transient was struck and killed crossing the tracks from north to south near Hickory Lane.
While the railroad has repeatedly pointed out the high accident rate on the track as a compelling need, residents like Alan Miller have noted that, for the most part, a fence would not prevent most of the fatalities that have occurred on the stretch of tracks that would be fenced off.
It was a point the Mayor emphasized as well back in July.
“Over the last 20 years, 14 track fatalities have occurred in the Davis area,” the Mayor said. “Only two — until today — have occurred in the stretch of tracks near the Depot. Of these two, one was a suicide and one involved intoxication. The circumstances and location are always unique, and so prevention is a challenge.”
Facts notwithstanding, the fatality no doubt forced the railroad to act sooner rather than later.
On Thursday, the city reiterated its support for safety in the form of an at-grade crossing.
“The City is committed to public safety in the vicinity of railroad tracks that traverse the City,” the city said in a release from Anne Brunette, the city’s Property Management Coordinator on Thursday.
“The City is committed to moving forward with the at-grade crossing to address access and safety issues for the Olive Drive residents. The City has a long history of investing local public dollars in crossings of the railroad tracks in Davis, including Covell Blvd. overcrossing, Mace Blvd widening, Dave Pelz pedestrian/bike overcrossing, Pole Line Road overcrossing, Richards Blvd. interchange improvements and Putah Creek I-80/RR undercrossing.”
“The city continues to adamantly oppose UPRR’s decision to fence off the Olive Drive neighborhood from its historic access to the city and its historic ability to cross the tracks,” the statement continued. “Cutting off access at this time does not promote the process of determining a safe access to the Station and downtown Davis for the Olive Drive area nor does it promote safety for the Amtrak and freight trains that use this corridor.”
“The city is concerned that the fence, as currently proposed, may decrease public safety rather than increasing safety because it may encourage crossing the track at more dangerous locations and because it will impede emergency access to the Olive Drive area,” the release continued.
However, there is not much the city can do. Because the Union Pacific Railroad property is considered private property regulated by the State and Federal government, the City of Davis has no viable legal mechanism to stop the construction.
“It is unfortunate that UPRR, under current law, can move forward with no governmental approval or oversight that would look at the larger public safety and access issues before UPRR can commence building the proposed fence,” the city continued.
Following the hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission, the Commission can direct that modification be made to the fence relative to an at-grade crossing.
However, as the Vanguard has repeatedly noted, not only the city, but the CPUC and CCJPA seem to oppose an at-grade crossing.
The CPUC staff is of the opinion that a grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing is the safest mitigation measure for this location. They write, “A grade-separated crossing would eliminate all potential conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclist and trains.”
They add, “There is no substantial evidence in this MND [mitigated negative declaration] to support the City of Davis proposal for an at-grade pedestrian crossing as opposed to a grade-separated pedestrian crossing, because it is feasible to construct a grade-separated crossing. While the City states that the most logical location for any crossing is in the vicinity of the SP Depot train station, there is no safety analysis provided in the MND to support this proposal.”
CPUC notes that they disagree with the statement, “The at-grade crossing in the vicinity of the depot would provide a safe, cost-effective crossing for users at this location.”
“While it may be less expensive, an at-grade crossing does not eliminate all hazards when compared to a grade-separated crossing,” the CPUC adds.
“Additionally, improving the existing pedestrian routes to improve overall safety would appear to be warranted,” they note. “Numerous persons at the January 11, 2011 City Council meeting expressed concern over the safety along City of Davis streets in the vicinity of Richards Boulevard and the roadway underpass beneath the tracks there. A more widely beneficial project to improve those pedestrian routes should be further examined and analyzed.”
In addition, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority sent a letter to the city stating, “While the CCJPA was aware the City of Davis was contemplating an at-grade crossing, we had not been consulted regarding the statements that we now see in the mitigated negative declaration.”
They add, “While CCJPA withdrew its funding support for the fence project leaving UPRR to pursue a fence project at their discretion, we believe all parties, including the City of Davis, understand that the existing pedestrian crossing situation is unsafe and that it should be modified to eliminate the unauthorized access of pedestrian traffic across the right-of-way with the yet unresolved question being what design would create a safe pedestrian crossing situation.”
They note, “Any time the public crosses a rail right-of-way at a grade crossing there is a risk of accidents or delays to trains. Incident rates at various grade crossings nationwide vary widely, but the average is not zero. The design and very operations of the proposed at-grade crossings will directly create rail impacts.”
They also come out in support of a grade-separated crossing, “In the opinion of the CCJPA, a grade-separated crossing would in fact be feasible and promote greater pedestrian/bicyclist safety. While implementation of a grade-separated crossing would likely cost more than an at-grade crossing, it would nevertheless be feasible. In fact, on more than one occasion, the CCJPA has offered its support to assist the City of Davis in securing funds for the design and construction of any such grade-separated crossing.”
From the city perspective, however, a grade-separated crossing is not viable in the city’s current financial situation. That likely leaves Olive Drive residents cut off from the downtown to a much greater extent than they are now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Could RDA funds be used for a grade separated crossing?
Efforts to secure an at-grade crossing represent a pretty sketchy tradeoff between safety and convenience. UPRR has every motivation to build a fence; at-grade crossings in the depot area, whether formal or informal, are inherently dangerous and pose liability and operational problems.
Let the railroad have its fence. Use RDA funds to build a parking garage at the depot instead of at the Kinko’s lot. Include bike and pedestrian ramp(s) from the garage over the tracks down to Hickory Lane. It won’t be nearly as convenient as walking over the rails, but it’ll be a whole lot safer.
[quote]They also come out in support of a grade-separated crossing, “In the opinion of the CCJPA, a grade-separated crossing would in fact be feasible and promote greater pedestrian/bicyclist safety. While implementation of a grade-separated crossing would likely cost more than an at-grade crossing, it would nevertheless be feasible. In fact, on more than one occasion, the CCJPA has offered its support to assist the City of Davis in securing funds for the design and construction of any such grade-separated crossing.”[/quote]
So it would seem the city should take the CCJPA up on their offer to assist the City in securing funds for a grade separated crossing.
[quote]Let the railroad have its fence. Use RDA funds to build a parking garage at the depot instead of at the Kinko’s lot. Include bike and pedestrian ramp(s) from the garage over the tracks down to Hickory Lane. It won’t be nearly as convenient as walking over the rails, but it’ll be a whole lot safer.[/quote]
Excellent point!
As a resident of Old East Davis, I would fully support the suggestion of use of RDA funds to support a parking garage at the depot including bike and pedestrian ramps into South Davis. This along with the UP constructed fence would have a number of advantages:
1) increased safety with decreased train/ community interaction on the tracks ( although not zero since I do not
believe the length of the fence as currently flagged is sufficient protection )
2) Increased peripheral and yet still walkable parking to downtown thus maintaining a bike and pedestrian
friendly core while providing ample parking
3) providing an alternative to Richards for those of us whose preference is to cross to the “other side of town”
on foot, bike, skateboard, rollerblades ( thinking of my son)
I would strongly recommend to our city council that they consider this option when, as will almost certainly happen, the at grade crossing denial becomes official.
medwomwn, if we have to have a garage then I agree with you that the Depot is a much better location as long as it’s aesthetically pleasing and not a concrete blob.
build the garage on Olive Drive, include the grade separated pedestrian crossing and quite whining about it. The city has zero leverage over UP and no amount of appealing to government agencies is going to change that. It is private property and they don’t want to kill hobos. Davis is NOT going to win this one. I agree with all the comments about building the garage here- it helps Amtrak and the city. Do it!
[i]”Could RDA funds be used for a grade separated crossing?”[/i]
Yes.
However, one top official with the City of Davis told me, when we were discussing this specific possibility, that the problem with paying millions of dollars for an overpass or an underpass for bikes and pedestrians at that location, is one of very limited usage. That is, there are literally only a couple hundred residents* in Davis who would ever use it. The other 65,000 people in town would be forced to pay for it. Most people on Olive Drive, this official told me, use and would continue to use the bicycle bore underpass at Richards and the Davis Subway at Richards to cross into downtown Davis.
Keep this in mind as well: no students who live in the Olive Drive area save any time illegally crossing the railroad tracks to get to school. The elementary-aged kids go to Montgomery. The junior high kids can get to Harper Junior High just as quickly (and much more safely) on bike by taking the US 40 bike path to Mace Blvd. And Davis High students use the bike bore as the most direct route.
So what we are really talking about is a small number of adults, most of whom live in or near Slatter’s Court ([url]http://daviswiki.org/Slatter’s_Court[/url]), who illegally cross the railroad tracks because it is a quicker route for them to go downtown. But they still have the perfectly reasonable and safe route through Richard’s Blvd.
*A fair come back is: but we are using RDA funds to finance a single business, Hanlee’s VW. So if we can fund one company (which is owned by people who do not even live in Davis), why can we not spend the money it takes to make things better for a few hundred Davis residents?
The answer is twofold: one, we can use RDA funds for a grade separated crossing; but, two, the motive behind funding Hanlee’s (and likewise the motive for financing the construction of the hotel-conference center project) is to increase the revenues into the coffers of the City of Davis. If we spend millions on a new Olive Drive crossing, that is money we will never get back. And again, more than 99% of Davis residents will never use it. Unlike say, the Dave Pelz overcrossing, which almost no one in my Sycamore Lane neighborhood ever uses, just about everyone in South Davis and Mace Ranch will at one time or another, if not regularly, uses it. A Slatter’s Court crossing will not serve many Davis residents ever.
[i]”I would fully support the suggestion of use of RDA funds to support a parking garage at the depot including bike and pedestrian ramps into South Davis.”[/i]
You seem to have a confused understanding of Davis geography, Meds. Olive Drive is not in South Davis. To get to South Davis, you have to cross over I-80.
If you want a bike crossing from the SP Depot to South Davis which lets off people on Olive Drive, you are talking tens of millions of dollars. No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested this before.
Further, the Richards Blvd. overpass which runs to Cowell Blvd is perfectly adequate right now. I walk from Davis Commons to Kaiser on Cowell all the time. It’s an easy and safe walk.
[i]”This along with the UP constructed fence would have a number of advantages:
1) increased safety with decreased train/ community interaction on the tracks (although not zero since I do not believe the length of the fence as currently flagged is sufficient protection).”[/i]
That is a strange, but interesting conclusion: you are saying that even if an overpass is built, the Slatter’s Court people will continue to cross the tracks illegally because the fence cannot stop them from breaking the law? The entire argument for a new crossing is that the people who live near Slatter’s Court want it. Yet Meds thinks they will still hop the fence after an overpass is built?
[i]”2) Increased peripheral and yet still walkable parking to downtown thus maintaining a bike and pedestrian friendly core while providing ample parking.”[/i]
One thing we don’t lack in the downtown area is “peripheral parking.” The peripheral parking garage on 4th Street at H, shows that*.
[i]”3) providing an alternative to Richards for those of us whose preference is to cross to the “other side of town” on foot, bike, skateboard, rollerblades (thinking of my son).”[/i]
I don’t understand this at all. What is your problem with taking Richards to South Davis from downtown? You want the taxpayers of Davis to spend tens of millions of dollars for a second overcrossing of I-80 one block away? That is nuts.
*Something more needs to be added to this: the idea of the E-F parking garage, which may or may not be a good idea, is not simply one about adding more parking for present needs. The idea is to allow for more dense, verticle growth from 2nd Street to 5th Street between the rail tracks and E Street.
All of the people in Davis who constantly whine about building on farmland on our periphery say we need densification in the core. Well, guess what, that is what this parking garage is about. If a property along G Street, say, has a single story building and would require say 10 parking places if the owner wants to go up to 3 stories for his new office tenants or apartment dwellers, he can pay in-lieu fees and park them in a core area parking garage. That is the only way you can densify in the core, unless you want to ignore the fact that people tend to own cars.
Now if you are the sort who supports peripheral growth and you oppose densification, then say so when you oppose the E-F lot. But if your argument is that for our current needs the SP Depot is a better place, you are missing the point about why the city’s bigwigs have favored the E-F lot, given that is where we are going verticle.
One more note … it might not sound like it with these comments, but I am not a partisan in favor of the E-F lot. I hate some things about it, including the fact that it is one of the only lots with great tree-shade coverage. I also think at 5 stories, it will probably be imposing on the rest of that neighborhood. My comments are thus not intended as advocacy for the E-F garage. I simply want to state that the comments made by Meds and others regarding a peripheral lot are missing the point of the entire project.
Just one point that confuses me about the “core/periphery” distinction as it concerns parking: In what sense are the current parking garages on the “periphery” of downtown? The distance between the 4th/G Street garage to Central Park is 3/10 of a mile. The Amtrak station is at the periphery only in the sense that nothing can be built east/south of it. Otherwise, it is situated in the “core” of downtown–within easy walking distance of all downtown retail businesses and restaurants. A parking garage there or across the tracks on Olive with foot/bike bridges across the tracks would also bring people very rapidly to all downtown businesses.
I think we should discontinue the use of core versus periphery and talk about the real distances and walking times involved. We should talk about how long it takes to walk from any of the potential or existing “peripheral” garages to the places in downtown where people most like to go. In all cases we are talking about a less than 15 minute walk.
We can have densification without sacrificing the downtown to more car traffic on streets that are best suited for walking and bicycling. Let’s use RDA to fund something that will serve several purposes like providing access for Olive Drive residents into downtown AND parking that helps maintain walkable and bikeable streets nearest the businesses. Foot traffic is a boon to any small business. Let’s create that while opening up Olive Drive to the downtown in a safe way.
Robb Davis
@Robb: you’re being way too logical… thank you.
I must be missing something. I thought that the bicycle group had demonstrated that the peripheral parking structures are underutilized. So how would building a parking structure at the Amtrak station help with downtown parking? The current proposal is to replace a parking lot with a parking garage, increasing the spaces and adding a retail component. What exactly is it that people are trying to preserve? And how would a garage on Olive Drive accomplish anything at all?
The downtown parking and the at-grade crossing are entirely separate issues.
They’re largely separate, but if a bike/ped overcrossing to Olive Drive makes sense (Rifkin makes a case — I won’t yet call it compelling — for not building one, leveraging a multi-story structure on one side of the tracks seems like a good idea.
With regard to putting parking where the business is, my thought is not just a garage at the depot, but a garage with ground-floor retail. The 2nd & H intersection is already buzzing with businesses (the Chen Building and the Depot Building), so why not create an even larger commercial presence by adding space at the Amtrak lot?
[quote]We can have densification without sacrificing the downtown to more car traffic on streets that are best suited for walking and bicycling. Let’s use RDA to fund something that will serve several purposes like providing access for Olive Drive residents into downtown AND parking that helps maintain walkable and bikeable streets nearest the businesses. Foot traffic is a boon to any small business. Let’s create that while opening up Olive Drive to the downtown in a safe way. [/quote]
[quote]With regard to putting parking where the business is, my thought is not just a garage at the depot, but a garage with ground-floor retail. The 2nd & H intersection is already buzzing with businesses (the Chen Building and the Depot Building), so why not create an even larger commercial presence by adding space at the Amtrak lot?[/quote]
Also, my understanding is that often the parking lot at the Amtrak station is often full w out of towners, so there is no room for residents of Davis. Obviously data should be collected to determine if this is true or just more anecdotal but unprovable evidence. But I certainly strongly feel that the option of a parking garage at the train depot is a more desirable alternative, since it would not seem so out of place at 5 stories, would provide more parking where perhaps it is more needed, and could be a nice way of expanding retail in “downtown” without drawing cars into the center of town creating more traffic congestion than is already there. What I am not sure of is if there is land/space available at the train depot sight for such a solution…
My original suggestion was RDA funds for separated grade crossing INSTEAD of the E/F parking lot use of the money. If we don’t need the parking and I’m not convinced we do, how about an innovative separated crossing PLUS retail near the depot so that more than Oluve Dr residents would have benefit from those RDA dollars. As a South Davis resident, having Hanlees benefit from Davis’ RDA dollars doesn’t help me much either!
Well, the problem with any further use of RDA funds is that, if I recall from Rich’s notes, they are fully encumbered now. So it is an either/or situation: parking/retail downtown, or parking at the Depot, or overpass for Olive Drive. I doubt if the funds are there to do all of them. I doubt if there are any RDA funds for a solution to the railroad’s fence.
Mr Shor – It is hard to make a nuanced argument in this space but I will try. A few points:
1. I am a bike advocate–a member of the Board of Davis Bicycles! Here, however, I am not representing DB!, but wishing to make some points about related matters of Olive Drive and downtown access and use.
2. DB! has opposed the E/F/3/4 parking structure and argued that downtown has a parking management problem not a parking deficit problem at this time. I hold to this position but recognize with densification this could change (see below).
3. The context here concerns Olive Drive but also the broader question of how to bring people into downtown and make downtown a place that all residents of Davis can access and enjoy. In that sense downtown–including parking, growth, access, etc. are related to the question of Olive Drive.
One factor that does bring all of these issues together is the RDA and how and where its money can be spent. An at-grade crossing of the UP line is a dead issue in my view. A grade-separated crossing is not, but the cost of such an endeavor is high, and as Mr Rifkin has pointed out, serves a (relatively) small number of people. This is why I am in favor of thinking creatively about how to combine various projects. Mr Rifkin is correct–if we want densification (and I do), then we must find ways to provide some parking. I do NOT think 3/4/E/F is a good way to achieve this but a garage elsewhere might be IF it is accompanied by overall better management of our entire parking stock including appropriate pricing of on-street parking. I do believe that densification can occur in a way that does not grow car usage in lockstep with new housing, but I will concede the argument that some new parking ( along with better managed parking) will be necessary. These are my personal views and not those of DB! as a group or other individuals within DB!.
The depot area is a tremendous resource for this city. As a regular train user I can attest to its value in bringing people to town and giving them direct access to what is best in Davis. Because of CA Amtrak’s policies the rail line makes it easy to bring a bike to Davis on the train from virtually anywhere in the state (I can explain how this works if anyone is interested). Because of its location people can also arrive and walk to most key destinations in town. It is also linked to the University via a regular Unitrans bus. I want us to build on THIS critical resource and thus I see a link between these projects.
I hope this helps clarify my views. Like you, I want a vibrant downtown and want to explore various options about how to make that happen.
Robb Davis
[quote]My original suggestion was RDA funds for separated grade crossing INSTEAD of the E/F parking lot use of the money. If we don’t need the parking and I’m not convinced we do, how about an innovative separated crossing PLUS retail near the depot so that more than Oluve Dr residents would have benefit from those RDA dollars.[/quote]
I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that there needs to be more data to determine if there is even a need for a parking garage at all…
Robb, your post is not only nuanced but very detailed. Thank you.
I think there are two possible customer groups under discussion here. Getting non-residents to Davis by rail, and to shopping downtown, is a very useful goal. Getting Davis residents downtown to shop is another goal. They don’t really, IMO, share a solution.
Davis residents are not going to go downtown, park near Amtrak, and walk to stores. They want to park within a block or so of their destination store or restaurant. Six or seven blocks away doesn’t really do it.
Mont’s suggestion about charging for the parking may be worth investigating, except (1) people don’t have to pay to park at box stores, and (2) the property owners and merchants already pay fees to cover some of the costs of parking.
So I think an expansion of retail and parking at the Depot is an excellent proposal for any number of reasons. (Better parking management is also an admirable goal, but it seems no forward progress has been made on that). Unfortunately, there is a dwindling amount of RDA funding left, and I doubt Davis taxpayers are willing to pony up for another project as well. DDBA strongly favors the parking/retail option downtown, the evidence is there that people perceive a parking shortage in the downtown, and this project has the greatest likelihood of actually occurring due to the presence of a willing property owner and developer. Anything at the Amtrak station is speculative and I don’t even know if the property owners would be remotely interested in it.
For the record, I have no dog in this fight. I don’t think anyone is going to park in any of the proposed sites and walk over to my nursery. I’m not even a downtown business. I’m just interested in the overall health of downtown, neighborhood, and locally-owned businesses.
[i]”Well, the problem with any further use of RDA funds is that, if I recall from Rich’s notes, they are fully encumbered now.”[/i]
Back on March 1, the City sold $18 million in bonds. So, yes, the funds are encumbered in the sense that every month we are making a principal + interest payment of $134,446.
However, the funds are not encumbered in the sense that they have been dedicated by contract to the E-F garage and there is no going back on that. To the best of my knowledge, the money from the bond sale (that we have left) is essentially just sitting there, though staff and the council have more-less decided this is how they want to spend it:
[b]1.[/b] E-F Parking Garage + 12,000 sf retail: $10,534,580, out of $14,100,000;
[b]2.[/b] Hotel Conference Center: $2,000,000, out of $7,540,000;
[b]3.[/b] Public Private Projects (eg, Caffe Italia): $1,480,204, out of $2,840,204;
[b]4.[/b] Streetscape Improvements: $1,100,000
[b]5.[/b] Gateway Consultant: $310,000
[b]6.[/b] Third Street: $1,713,804
[b]7.[/b] At-grade Crossing: $50,000
[b]Note A:[/b] Most of the money going to those top three projects which is not coming from the bonds is coming from cash that the RDA had on hand at the start of this year. Also, the E-F garage would get $425,000 from the parking in-lieu fund and $2,300,000 from the sale of the 12,000 s.f. of retail space.
[b]Note B:[/b] I don’t know what the Gateway Consultant bit is all about.
[b]Note C:[/b] The Third Street Improvement Project also should get funds from a few other minor sources. Likewise, the at-grade crossing will get an additional $22,000 from an account called “RDA 951.”
[b]Note D:[/b] While the E-F garage is, AFAIK, a project that the City could still back away from, it’s possible or even probable, that some contracts have been signed for the others I listed above.
[b]Note E:[/b] The total amounts from the $18 million in bonds adds up to $17,188,588. That is $811,412 less than the amount we borrowed. I guess the reason for that difference is the assumption that is how much we will have paid in principal + interest to the bond holders before the funds are spent.
[I]”DB! has opposed the E/F/3/4 parking structure and argued that downtown has a parking management problem not a parking deficit problem at this time.”[/I]
I am still open-minded when it comes to the E-F garage. There are things to like about it and not. However, I think Robb misses the point, here: the idea of the garage is not simply about a parking deficit for the downtown at the moment. The idea is about growing the downtown vertically.
That means increasing the amount of residential units in the E-F-G part of the core area, such as Chuck Roe did with his small project at 5th & G. That also means increasing the amount of second and or third story office space in that same part of downtown. Also, by putting in verticle parking garage space, the downtown will be able to increase the amount of ground floor retail.
I completely understand the objections to this verticality notion for those who think the present scale of downtown from E to the tracks is preferable. That is a legitimate and common point of view.
What is illegitimate is to eschew the notion that the Core Area Specific Plan envisions verticality in that section and make an argument based on the notion that at present we have enough parking; or even that we should be encouraging bicycling or walking and not driving, unless those who say that think that the people who will work in new 2nd and 3rd story offices should not be allowed to drive to work; or that people who live in new, taller buildings should not be allowed to own a car.
Much of this comes down to your vision of Davis: one vision is to have no growth. No infill. No verticality. No peripheral growth; another is to have growth, but make it denser; and a third, I suppose, is to have peripheral growth.
The E-F parking garage is essential if your vision for Davis is growth, but not sprawl.
I very well may be missing the point (there are several actually on the table). If growth is to occur (and presumably Davis will continue to grow in some fashion) I believe that densification and verticality will be necessary. I work 2 days per week on an organic farm 6 miles to the north of my home and if I have learned anything in the year plus I have worked there it is that our Yolo farmland MUST be preserved for farming (another topic for another time). Sprawl is, therefore, not an option.
Truly peripheral growth within the city limits will hurt the downtown.
The question is, how are people who live in this denser, more vertical downtown going to get around. Our City leaders have set a goal that by 2030 half of all trips in Davis will be by public transit, walking and bicycling. As a result, we must find ways to deal with density and verticality that account for this important goal. Can we grow retail and housing downtown without growing auto use (and the need for parking) in “lockstep” with that growth? The answer is yes I believe. I would like us as a city to explore how that might be done. And even if some growth in car use is inevitable, deciding where those cars should be parked need not lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that 3/4/E/F is the best or only option.
I know this has strayed from the original post on Olive Drive but I feel that given limited RDA funds we should think about how to combine some of the current and future needs of a denser downtown and seek creative solutions that deal with several of them at once.
I acknowledge that I still may be missing some important points but that is how I see these issues as related to each other.
Robb Davis
[i]”I believe that densification and verticality will be necessary. … Sprawl is, therefore, not an option. … Can we grow retail and housing downtown without growing auto use (and the need for parking) in “lockstep” with that growth? The answer is yes I believe.”[/i]
The reason why socialism failed in the Soviet Union and every other communist country is not because the idea of “from each according to his ability; for each according to his need” is not a romantic and thus attractive idea. The problem is it violates human nature.
So when it comes to planning, it makes no sense to me to plan as if we don’t know how people behave.
If we add tens of thousands of square feet of more retail and more housing and more office space to the core area in the E-F-G zone and tell people who will be living and working downtown that they should not drive cars, we are acting as foolishly as the central planners in Moscow, Pyongyang and Hanoi acted.
I am [i]the leading advocate[/i] in Davis for greater direct bus service to the downtown core. We have a city council that pays virtually all of the costs of Unitrans, but cares nothing about direct bus service to the downtown*. If we had a better council–one that listened to me–we could reduce some auto trips to downtown, and thus free up some parking spaces. That is a part of the solution. It is not the whole solution.
However, that does not solve the problem that when you have more and more retail and more offices and more housing, you are going to increase demand for parking. So if you don’t build a parking facility before you add these users, or you build one remote from where the demand is, you are going to create a problem that is easily forseeable.
Once again: If you don’t want any growth or any densification, then say that. But if you favor vertical growth within the city, you have to expectg that that, in and of itself, will increase demand for parking.
*Even though the City of Davis pays the bill for Unitrans–I don’t recall the exact percentage, but I think it is around 80%–the council bows down to Geoff Straw, who runs the service for the University’s interests. Mr. Straw tells the council there is no need for direct service to downtown Davis. So the council accepts that and gives him all the money he needs. The situation is not corrupt like the firefighters funding council campaigns and then getting a 36% pay raise. But it is similar in the way that the council seems to ignore the needs of the taxpayers in place of the needs of the employees.
[i]”Our City leaders have set a goal that by 2030 half of all trips in Davis will be by public transit, walking and bicycling.”[/i]
Really? Not that I don’t believe you, but what is the point of setting a goal that can’t be achieved by the people setting the goal?
[i]”So if you don’t build a parking facility before you add these users, or you build one [u]remote from where the demand is[/u], you are going to create a problem that is easily forseeable.”[/i]
I want to address this idea of building a verticle parking garage where the SP Depot is. I don’t necessarily think it is wrong. It’s a different vision for downtown Davis. It would make no sense to build it there if most of the densification is planned for the area closer to 5th Street. However, if the idea is to build a 5 story garage at the SP Depot wih a ramp down to Olive Drive and then plan for densification all around that new garage, it makes some sense.
But what I don’t understand, other than this bit about a ramp to Olive Drive for the handful of people who live on Slatter’s Court and refuse to walk a half block to the underpass which exists, is why it is so much better to keep the E-F-G area from 5th to 2nd low-rise while growing vertically around the depot. What is it about densification there which makes it better than densification between US Bank and B of A?
[i]”I am the leading advocate in Davis for greater direct bus service to the downtown core.”[/i]
Check that. I am the only advocate in Davis for greater direct bus service to the downtown core.
I think Davis Bicycles! is a worthless group if they don’t get on board with me and lobby the city council to change the Unitrans policy and demand a downtown hub for bus-lines from every part of Davis. More than that, DB! should be writing letters and op-eds which say, “Rich Rifkin is right for god’s sake! Get your lazy tushies in gear and construct a bus hub in the heart of downtown so people who are driving cars to movies and to restaurants and so on can ride a bus directly to the core.” And then repeat this line: “That Rifkin was right all the f*%&^ing time, and we were terribly slow to support his idea, but now we see the error of our ways!”
Rich,
First, thanks for the new nickname “Meds”. I wasn’t aware of the degree of warmth you felt for me.
Probably sympathy for my lack of geographic savvy which happens to be accurate. However, I think that some of your points are less accurate.
First, I think that you underestimate the number of people who might benefit from a safe crossing at or near the depot. While I agree that most of the traffic would probably come from the Olive Drive communities, I think that there also might be some interest from the neighborhoods adjacent to the tracks on the north.
Don Shor
I disagree that the parking at the E St. site is essential to densification. I feel that Robb Davis’ view is probably best in keeping with the city’s purported goal of improving bicycle and pedestrian traffic within the downtown area while promoting safety and hopefully limiting the automobile traffic through the downtown area. I think that if you are correct that most people don’t want to walk more than a block to shop ( which I am not sure is truly a widespread mindset in our town) then it is this attitude that we should be working to shift rather than trying to accommodate. And at least one citizen did frequently use the depot parking lot and walk to shop.
At least until I bought into the Old East Davis neighborhood and now walk everywhere downtown, and sometimes along Olive Drive on my was to South Davis ( thanks for geo quiz answer Rich !)
[i]”I think that there also might be some interest from the neighborhoods adjacent to the tracks on the north.”[/i]
Why? So they can bury body parts at Slatter’s Court ([url]http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-07-20/bay-area/17501218_1_david-lawrence-beale-pathology-support-services-autopsy-assistant[/url])?
[i]”I think that if you are correct that most people don’t want to walk more than a block to shop (which I am not sure is truly a widespread mindset in our town) then it is this attitude that we should be working to shift rather than trying to accommodate.”[/i]
In other words, you are setting out to change human nature, Meds.
“Anything at the Amtrak station is speculative and I don’t even know if the property owners would be remotely interested in it.”
Speaking as one of the property owners — last I checked, the parcel is owned by the City of Davis, or the RDA — I’m more than remotely interested in it. It could be a source of significant revenue for the city if ground-floor retail were included in a garage project.
Note also that the depot parcel — even after you subtract the “corners” that aren’t practical for building upon due to their narrow configuration — is as large as the entire EF34 block, and is much larger than the EF34 parking lot.
As others have noted, RDA funds are scarce. I wouldn’t rule out development of EF34 at some point, but right now I’d rather see those monies go toward something that wouldn’t entice more cars into the heart of downtown and precipitously alter the scale of the landscape there.
Jim Frame: Keep in mind that the northern spur would have to be traversed by enormous numbers of cars and pedestrians if we built a parking lot at the AMTRAK station. I don’t think we want to go there.
Wow, finally a substantive, informative, fairly comprehensive debate on what it takes to foster a vibrant downtown, it’s role in a sustainable community, and the relationship between core densification, sprawl, and peripheral development. I want to commend Rich, Don, and Robb on a very informative exchange, which should be required reading for the City Council as they move forward in their decision making. I’d like to add a few points to round out the debate.
1) There is no point in debating how people who live and work in a densified Core will get around, unless you buid a parking structure first. At least one medium sized parking structure is the precursor to a densified Core. It is exceedingly unlikely that a developer can be persuaded to build a 3 or 4 story mixed-use building without providing parking in close proximity. And it would have to be a cash builder since no lender would finance such a project.
2) Don’s observation that a 3/4/E/F project would achieve different aims than a depot project are spot on. Robb, the Depot site from a practical, and in some respects a physical perspective, is on the Downtown periphery. It’s in a physical corner. It cannot spur development to the south or east. The Chen property to the northwest has already been developed. Developing the Anderson property also to the northwest is problematic since the site is occupied by Ace. That leaves only the property to the west (the property with Subway, Our House, etc.). Extending a bit further one encounters numerous historical buildings, which presents its own set of development challenges.
3) Getting cars over or under the north spur into a proposed Depot parking structure would present a huge challenge as Sue mentions.
4) I’m fairly certain that the City is not free to develop the Depot parking lot without negotiating an agreement with the Feds who financed the existing parking lot. Somebody please fact check this statement.
5)The Depot is a historical building and a development on the parking lot would trigger a review with who knows what implications.
6)If the aim of developing additional parking at the Depot site is to avoid having cars drive through Downtown, then the mark will be missed. The vast majority of residents live north of the rail road tracks. Some would come down H Street, but most of them would have to drive through a significant portion of Downtown to reach the Depot.
As Rich stated, a project on the Depot site is speculative. It would require years of effort that could all prove fruitless for any number of reasons.
If one agrees with Robb that Core densification is necessary to reduce pressure for peripheral development and urban sprawl, I really don’t see how you get around moving forward with a project at 3/4E/F. It is the only practical site that can proceed right now, or even in the near term.
By the way, Robb’s rationale for Core densification echoes the General Plan and the Core Area Specific Plan very, very closely. Let’s be clear, those who argue against Core densification in essence disagree with the the GP and CASP. They have every right to disagree, but they are staking a position contrary to the community’s vision. Although, they might try arguing that the GP and CASP no longer represent the community’s vision (But I haven’t heard that argument made while this debate has been raging the past 2 months).
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman
I forgot to mention. We may someday, many years from now, figure out the challenges to developing the Depot site. For instance, the north spur might someday be abandoned. When that day comes, it is entirely possible that Federal funds for developing properties in close proximity to train stations will be available to develop the property. If that’s the case, we wouldn’t need to use our scarce RDA funds for a Depot project.
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman
“Robb, the Depot site…is on the Downtown periphery. It’s in a physical corner. It cannot spur development to the south or east. The Chen property to the northwest has already been developed. Developing the Anderson property also to the northwest is problematic since the site is occupied by Ace.”
These sound like points in favor of a depot garage. Were they meant to be otherwise?
“The Depot is a historical building and a development on the parking lot would trigger a review with who knows what implications.”
My thought is to leave the depot building as-is. Even without the building and its immediate surrounding improvements, and excluding the tough-to-develop corners, there’s still 2 acres of usable space on the site.
“3) Getting cars over or under the north spur into a proposed Depot parking structure would present a huge challenge as Sue mentions.”
My informal observation is that almost all the switching onto the Tehama line takes place on the northeast side of the triangle. I can’t remember the last time I saw a train on the west side. I’d be interested to see statistics on the number of trains per day that use it. In any case, we seem to be able to live comfortably with trains crossing 5th Street and 8th Street on the Tehama line; why would 2nd Street pose a problem?
“Our City leaders have set a goal that by 2030 half of all trips in Davis will be by public transit, walking and bicycling.”
Robb, are you certain the goal statement wasn’t more nuanced? Would you mind emailing the policy document stating this goal to me? I looked several weeks ago online for the Climate Action Plan, but the City link was bad.
Jim, what am I missing? One of the key objectives of a parking structure is to spur further private development. I detailed how the Depot site is unlikely to achieve this objective. How does failing to achieve a key project objective support a a Depot site?
Jim, you’re a surveyor are you not? I suppose there could be two Jim Frames in Davis. Your unaware that developing in proximity to a historical building triggers a review? Such a review might not kill a project, but it certainly raises an element of uncertainty. Rich, being on the HRC, could speak more to this issue.
Jim, just because a RR rarely uses a spur doesn’t mean the City can simply ignore it. What are the sight line requirements for an at grade crossing? What will it cost to build? How long would it take to negotiate an agreement with the RR? What if the RR opposes an at grade crossing as is the case on the east/west spur? Having to deal with this challenge introduces yet another level of uncertainty.
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman
I must correct something I wrote in an earlier comment. I said:
“Our City leaders have set a goal that by 2030 half of all trips in Davis will be by public transit, walking and bicycling.”
This is incorrect and I was working from memory. The City Council adopted the “Climate Action and Adaptation Plan” which has as part of its vision for mid-century:
“With all residents living within walking/biking distance of essential services that allow them to meet their essential needs, more than half their trips are by foot, bike, transit or other low carbon mode.”
Goals in this plan only extend to the nearer future (mostly 2015) but I still think this vision should drive planning. I will bow out of this discussion now but leave still scratching my head about why Mr Bisch and others feel that the 3/4/E/F garage is a prerequisite for the densification being discussed here.
I also leave acknowledging that Mr Rifkin is the ONLY advocate in town concerned with getting more buses into the downtown core. I have a suggestion for you sir. Why not start a new advocacy group called “Davis Buses!” (the exclamation point being key). I can assure you that I will quickly become a dues paying member.
“Jim, what am I missing? One of the key objectives of a parking structure is to spur further private development. I detailed how the Depot site is unlikely to achieve this objective.”
I think our views in this regard diverge in a couple of ways. One is that I don’t believe that going 5 stories in the EF34 block now is timely. While increasing heights downtown is probably inevitable, I’d rather see it happen gradually, and driven by buildings designed for people rather than cars. The depot lot, being on the edge of the core and an integral part of the city’s transportation hub, seems like a better place to house autos.
Another is that a depot garage that includes ground-floor retail would increase downtown commercial activity and provide revenue to the city.
With regard to a historical review at the depot, I don’t imagine that building one facility to house cars (a garage) to replace an existing facility to house cars (a parking lot) would alter the situation. It’s not like there are significant viewsheds that would be disturbed; you pretty much can’t see the depot except from 2nd & H, and that wouldn’t change. A review? Sure. An impediment? Seems unlikely.
“Jim, just because a RR rarely uses a spur doesn’t mean the City can simply ignore it. What are the sight line requirements for an at grade crossing? What will it cost to build? How long would it take to negotiate an agreement with the RR?”
There’s already a signalized crossing in place, and I don’t recall hearing of any major flaps when it was upgraded only a few years ago. While it might benefit from a little widening, I’m not sure even that’s necessary.
As Robb suggested, this thread is getting a little long in the tooth, and it may be time to let it idle. I don’t present the depot garage as a panacea, though I don’t think it’s been given adequate attention. What I do see is a precipitous plan to spend a whole bunch of RDA money on a project that doesn’t look very appealing to me. After the poor deal the city got on the 4th & G garage, I’m leery of rushing headlong into another big project with uncertain returns.
Jim, the proposed 3/4/E/F project has 4 stories (with roof top parking) not 5. Why would the ground floor retail at 3/4/E/F provide any less commercial activity and city revenue than the ground floor retail you are proposing for the Depot site? Why do you so readily discount the input of the retail community who are saying that additional parking at 3/4/E/F would be far more conducive to their businesses than the Depot site? 7-10 years into the 3/4/E/F project, perhaps even more depending on what one considers the starting point to be, how can you say the plan is “precipitous” or speak of “rushing headlong”?
Once again, we already have a garage near 4th and G that is close to the 3/4/E/F project and it is under utilized. This new garage isn’t needed.
[quote]Robb, your post is not only nuanced but very detailed. Thank you.
I think there are two possible customer groups under discussion here. Getting non-residents to Davis by rail, and to shopping downtown, is a very useful goal. Getting Davis residents downtown to shop is another goal. They don’t really, IMO, share a solution.
Davis residents are not going to go downtown, park near Amtrak, and walk to stores. They want to park within a block or so of their destination store or restaurant. Six or seven blocks away doesn’t really do it. [/quote]
If employees were forced to park at a garage built at the Train Depot, it would free up spaces in the downtown for customers, a nice synergy for promoting downtown shopping. Having retail at the Train Depot would actually increase the size of the downtown core a bit, and make the city that much more vibrant as a whole. Could bring more customers to that end of town. I think it is an idea that ought to be at least considered, since it represents a true multi-modal transportation hub… and can provide expansion of downtown retail…
ERM, the objectives you mention are certainly worthy. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Depot site doesn’t achieve one of the primary project objectives, which is to spur additional private sector redevelopment. There are simply too few parcels surrounding the Depot site that are readily suitable for redevelopment in the short or medium term. Spurring private sector redevelopment is one of the primary objetives of an RDA.
rusty49, you’re missing the point (see response to ERM immediately above and see previous comments from Rifkin and Shor). Although underutilized, the 4th/G structure is slowly, but surely achieving it’s key objectives. It is spurring development all around it and will continue to do so. A parking structure elsewhere in the downtown is likely to do the same if properly located.
I have noticed over the past couple months that many, many peope either do not understand or simply ignore the fact that RDA’s are intended to spur private sector redevelopment. RDA projects are not isolated projects, rather, are intended to address much broader community objectives. Obviously, the project proponents are failing in their efforts to communicate this message. The point fell on deaf ears at the TAG, the SAPC, and isn’t fairing to well in this forum either. I’m not sure what the answer is.
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman
“rusty49, you’re missing the point (see response to ERM immediately above and see previous comments from Rifkin and Shor). Although underutilized, the 4th/G structure is slowly, but surely achieving it’s key objectives. It is spurring development all around it and will continue to do so. A parking structure elsewhere in the downtown is likely to do the same if properly located.”
So we need another garage a block and a half away? Once (if ever) the 5th and G garage starts filling up I might agree with you, but until then this new garage is just an albatross waiting to happen.
[quote]ERM, the objectives you mention are certainly worthy. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Depot site doesn’t achieve one of the primary project objectives, which is to spur additional private sector redevelopment. There are simply too few parcels surrounding the Depot site that are readily suitable for redevelopment in the short or medium term. Spurring private sector redevelopment is one of the primary objetives of an RDA. [/quote]
I’m really at a loss here, so please be patient with me so I can understand your viewpoint. If the garage is located in the middle of downtown, it is going to have a retail component on the first floor. If the garage is built at the train depot it would have a retail component on the first floor. So that part of the equation is equal.
There are actually blank/only partially developed real estate spaces in and around the Train Depot that could be developed for retail. In fact some developer seems interested in this very idea according to one comment. There is no blank real estate to expand if the garage is in the middle of downtown – it would be surrounded by already existing businesses. So I am not quite following how a parking garage downtown would spur more retail business development surrounding it – please explain so I can understand…
ERM, which blank/only partially developed sites surrounding the Train Depot do you think will be developed because of a Depot project? I’m looking at a map of Downtown and am not seeing the parcels that you are referring to.
As for blank parcels surrounding the 3/4/E/F, you’re right, they’re minimal. But I never suggested redevelopment would be happening on vacant parcels, quite the contrary. We’re in an urban environment dominated by 1 and 2 story structures. If greater density is desired, one has to demolish the existing structures. That’s one of the main reasons redevelopment in a downtown is so costly and generally doesn’t happen in the absence of an RDA. And that’s one of the main reasons the vast majority of development in Davis takes place on the periphery. The periphery developes, the core decays. The urban renewal that has occurred in California communities generally has occurred since the advent of RDAs. It’s not a coincidence.
“The periphery developes, the core decays.”
I would have to say that our core is doing quite nicely.
rusty49, I question your knowlege in this regard. Restaurants and theatres are doing so/so, not gang busters, but puttering along, retail is extremely challenged, and the business/office sector is struggling. The sum total of this is Downtown economic activity is down. In what respect is that doing nicely?
[quote]As for blank parcels surrounding the 3/4/E/F, you’re right, they’re minimal. But I never suggested redevelopment would be happening on vacant parcels, quite the contrary. We’re in an urban environment dominated by 1 and 2 story structures. If greater density is desired, one has to demolish the existing structures. [/quote]
So I am assuming then what you are advocating for is demolishing existing structures to build taller structures at the E/F site? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your position.
And you are perfectly correct, I am not certain what land is available to be developed near the train station, but I think it is an avenue (pardon the pun) that should be explored. I’m actually thinking of the street that runs perpendicular to the RR tracks between the two sections of Ace Hardware, as a good place to start. Even some of the buildings around the Train Depot could be built up a few floors and not detract from the look downtown. I’m not sure, just positing possibilities that I personally would like to see looked at…
I’m keeping a very open mind on this project…
I am in agreement with Rich about the desirability of improved public transportation in the downtown area. I am not sue that buses are the only feasible solution. While visiting Istanbul years ago, I was introduced to a mode of transportation called the “dolmush”, which means “packed”.
The closest description I could give would be a shared town car or minivan that has a set and frequuent run schedule and ferries passengers from multimodal transportation sites, such as the depot to popular downtown locations. Ot for that matter to such crosstown destinations as the depot to Kaiser, or the Sac City extension, or the South Davis student apartments. Something like this would certainly be a different approach , and one we are not used to, but which could add another dimension to moving beyond sole reliance on the private automobile. And to Rich, I do not think that attempting to move beyond individual car dependence is attempting to change human nature. I do believe that it is attempting to change human behavior into safer, healthier, less wasteful patterns which I think is a reasonable goal.
To medwoman: Geoff Straw of Unitrans has indicated no one wants more buses in the middle of downtown; there is a pedicab service operating in Davis which provides an alternative to cars; the smaller minivan shuttle idea was already tried from campus to downtown and was an abysmal failure – not enough ridership…
You know what folks, just watch accidents among cars, cyclists and pedestrians go up on Richards and Olive. That is the scariest corner. As an elder who lives on Olive Drive, I am deeply saddened by this news. I’ve enjoyed the ease with which I can cross the lovely field and step over one lousy track to the platform to get to downtown, but now my risk for getting hit by a car goes up due to that menacing corner.
I do not believe for one minute that Union Pacific is at all concerned about dead hobos. That one is a stretch. People will go around and under your wall and if you don’t think that fence is not gong to be cut every which way but loose, well, you are living in fantasy land. The Chinese taught us about the effect of a wall. From what I have seen of the Amtrak conductors…talk about big whining babies. They cry about dead hobos, graffitti, I remember some kids in West Sac several years ago fooling around on the tracks,drinking, holding up the train. The damn conductor stopped the train and got out to confront the boys. It did not go well. I tell you, had I been on that train I would have found a way to sue Amtrak for that conductor leaving and putting us all at risk. He should have stayed put and called for help. Amtrak conductors are big macho babies. My .02.
If the City of Davis does not construct at at grade crossing over the tracks, well then we will know how Davis feels about Olive Drive and its “Preservation”.
ERM
I am wondering if a campus to town route might not be the wrong route to judge by. I suspect that the demand for a shuttle like service, if Don is correct about people not being willing to walk more than a block or two would be within the downtown area itself, especially to the center of town if there were expanded parking capacity at the depot. As has been pointed out in other contexts, Davis is an aging. I wonder if this may not contribute to changing future demand for alternative means of transportation.