It has gone from an afterthought to one of the biggest issues in town. The impact of I-80’s increased traffic and the increasing rate of cut-through traffic has led to more people using bypasses, exacerbating congestion on Mace and other surface streets.
On Thursday, Caltrans hosted an open house at the Blanchard Room – it was well attended by the public, which had a chance to submit comments.
According to city officials, the project would then go to an EIR, but the expectation is that this is a project that is at least ten years out – not something that is going to help improve traffic conditions in the near-term.
On Tuesday, Adrian Engel from Fehr & Peers pointed out “some of the congestion can be mitigated with the solutions that we have, but all of it will not be mitigated.” The key is there will be 
“freeway congestion that causes queuing onto the corridor.”
He explained that he and his team got onto the freeway during peak time to validate that the freeway was not the fastest way to get from Dixon to the Causeway. Five of them traveled at the same time through different routes to see if the apps and maps and Waze “were telling us the true story.”
Traveling on the freeway was indeed the longest time. Some of the other routes “were definitely faster than the freeway.” The fastest they found was Highway 113 and County Road 29 to bypass the queue. They found that to be almost 15 minutes faster.
“There are multiple ways that can be used to bypass this freeway traffic,” he said. “The software that’s giving you these alternate routes is true and we have verified are actually faster. Ultimately the solution for this problem is going to fix I-80 and getting that traffic to flow better to keep cars on the freeway. Because if you fix Mace or do something to Mace, it may just cause traffic to go in other places.”
Project Alternatives:
ALTERNATIVE / 1A
- Kidwell Road to Solano/Yolo Co. line, convert one mixed flow lane to managed lanes;
- Solano/Yolo County Line to west end of the Yolo Causeway, pave median and widen to the outside to add managed lanes;
- Yolo Causeway to east of Enterprise Boulevard, remove existing bike lane, restripe bridge to add managed lanes, construct separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge;
- East of Enterprise Boulevard and continuing on 1-80 to West El Camino Avenue, add managed lanes by constructing a connector and striping managed lanes on paved median, construct a park-n-ride lot at Enterprise Blvd., restripe Bryte Bend bridge to add managed lanes;
- 1-80/US 50 Separation to Jefferson Blvd. Undercrossing, convert mixed-flow lanes to managed lanes; and
- Jefferson Blvd. Undercrossing to just east of Interstate 5, restripe pavement to add managed lanes.
ALTERNATIVE / 1B
- Same as Alternative 1A except widen Yolo Causeway for bike/ped instead of new bridge.
ALTERNATIVE / 1C
- Same as Alternative 1A except use existing Yolo Causeway bike/ped facility and restripe Yolo Causeway with Managed Lanes in each direction.
ALTERNATIVE / 1D
- Same as Alternative 1A, except widen median between Kidwell and Solano/ Yolo Co. line.
ALTERNATIVE / 2
- Interim EB Reversible Lane from just west of Yolo County Line to Enterprise Blvd. convert mixed flow lanes to Managed Lanes on US50 to 1-5 I/C.
ALTERNATIVE / 3
- Interim project, similar to Alternative 1 A except widen median only between Yolo County line and Yolo Causeway, no new bike/ped bridge or managed lane to managed lane connectors· at the 1-80/US 50 1/C.
ALTERNATIVE / 4: Interim project, stripe managed lanes on Bryte Bend bridge.
ALTERNATIVE / 5: Same as Alternative 1 A, except use managed lanes exclusively for transit use.
ALTERNATIVE / 6: Same as Alternative 1 A, except construct two managed lanes in each direction.
ALTERNATIVE / 7: No Build.
Additional scope to be studied as part of the alternatives include the following:
- Auxiliary lane from southbound 113 to eastbound 1- 80 and Richards Blvd
- Convert one existing general-purpose lane in each direction to managed lanes
- ‘Westbound 80 Auxiliary Lane from Jefferson Blvd to Harbor Blvd
- Transit connectivity to mainline
- Ramp meters, CCTV, Changeable Message Signs
—David M. Greenwald reporting
>> “this is a project that is at least ten years out – not something that is going to help improve traffic conditions in the near-term” <<
Right. And surprise! It isn't going to "help improve traffic conditions" in the long-term either. This is not my opinion, this is the conclusion of all the studies that have been done. The sentence that I quoted above inappropriately implies that these $100-$600 million "improvements" will, at some point, reduce traffic congestion.
I recently wrote this to the DBC email list:
The bottom line is that until we have viable options to the private motor vehicle (options that are given priority over the private motor vehicle), we will just keep spending more to get more of the same problem. We need other ways to move people, and those other ways need to be fast, efficient, safe and convenient. We seem to always be willing to pave more lanes for motor vehicles, but we don’t seem to have the appetite to spend money to make meaningful change. It is not possible to pave our way out of vehicle congestion, yet we keep trying to do it year after year all across the country.
We somehow always find money for new roads (though not to maintain them, of course), yet we never have enough money for the alternatives that will actually help. The six-lane causeway is not the problem that we need to solve, IMO. As e-bikes explode in popularity, imagine what could happen if we create an excellent facility for riders to cross between Davis and Sacramento… coupled with more efficient rail and bus systems that encourage bikes onboard for the “last mile."
Right Arm, Triple-D!
At the heart of solving the private vehicle problem is addressing the housing density problem. Offering more transit won’t work if its inconvenient and expensive. Our current land use has two problems: the density is not well served by spread out transit stops with transit service that is highly periodic and unreliable. Only in places with much higher density than anywhere such as we have in the Central Valley (think the East Bay as the minimum density) can effective transit be viable. The other problem is dispersed job locations for two income households. One person may be close to their job, but the other may be far away. That solution is stickier, but probably requires more concentrated job centers where both household partners are likely to get jobs close to each other.
But any land use solutions are facing stiff political opposition. We don’t appear to have the will to solve this problem with effective transit yet.
The other solution is toll roads akin to the Fastrak lanes in the Bay Area. There are ways to make this more economically equitable while maintaining the price incentive.
Wholeheartedly disagree RMc. I mean sure, “if its inconvenient and expensive”, but the whole point of building massively more is to make it convenient. Fares are set as public policy, so that’s a different issue.
I think this is the mistake our government and our activists are making. Density will follow ‘naturally’ by market if there is fantastic rail service and connecting buses that are frequent and timed. Everyone is trying to do this backwards by forcing land use and parking restrictions – and hoping the transit gets built later or that everyone takes Uber and it stays cheap forever (hint: it won’t).
Transit first! (Not housing first – in ANY sense of the term)
Agreed, with caveats… cost/benefit…
Manhattan… subways, buses, trains, walking, etc. Found it easy to get around… one of our kids lived there for 1.5 years… no car… worked fine…
Not convinced Davis or the region is at that “critical mass” yet, but am thinking we’re getting close…
Mass transit, be it bus, train, light rail, or individual “pedal power” (or some combination of those) is probably leading to a solution… or at minimum, a mitigation…
Those modes should be accommodated, and/or given incentives… just my opinion..
But it drills down to cost/benefit…
Richard, Alan, Bill… I appreciate hearing each of these thoughtful and helpful comments. This is a wildly complicated problem, and the current focus on “fix I-80” is too narrow to be of any real help.
Hmm. I “wonder” where that traffic ends up? Perhaps going right past a site proposed for a 4,340-parking space development?
No. Actually it ends up entering off Road 32 right before the causeway.
Can you explain this a little further?
Wouldn’t eastbound traffic go down road 29, to road 102, then to Covell and Mace (the site of the proposed ARC?)
Or, does it stay on the road that goes past the landfill, ultimately still coming out on Mace?
If it’s not going past the ARC site, how exactly is it avoided?
Also, would such traffic ultimately share a possible shared freeway access point, with ARC?
I thought I would have a chance to pull up the actual quote – but the morning is cooperating, but I believe they had people going directly out to road 32 and entering near the levy.
I’d like to know how they’re avoiding going right past the site, as well as whether or not they’d share a freeway access point.
I’m not aware of any logical way to avoid it.
Another question would be whether or not any alternative route that you might be referring to would also be used by ARC, when their “own” route becomes congested/backed-up.
The bypass traffic comes up south Mace from the South.
Afternoon traffic exits 80 to the south of the freeway between Dixon and Davis. Takes Tremont road to Mace, then makes everybody is happy to accommodate all that on South Mace. Not many use Mace north of the freeway to bypass EB freeway congestion.
Darrell:
Note the quote, from the article:
That’s on the North side.
Also note the comment from Gloria Partida (see link below), regarding existing traffic on the North side:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2019/11/council-goes-with-compromise-on-mace-back-to-two-lanes-keeps-protected-bike-path/#comment-416124
There isn’t a “single” path that WAZE is necessarily directing traffic to, as noted in the article. It is, in fact, a very “fluid” application.
Since you appear to be concerned about the use of cars, I’m wondering how you feel about a 4,340-parking space development proposal, in the same area discussed in the article.
I’ll check back to see if David is able to find the information he is referring to, and whether or not it addresses the questions I brought up.
OH… sorry Ron. I’m so steeped in the Mace thing that I guess I put on my blinders. I’m not really sure what folks are talking about on the north side. I heard Gloria’s comments at council live, and the point about the north part of Mace was that we have cars stacked up there to get on the freeway as well (and all the way down Second Street to the brewery, and all the way down 1st to B, and then up B to 5th) so clearly the Mace redesign is not responsible for all the in-town congestion.
I’m not so concerned about the use of cars. I’m far more concerned about our infrastructure and planning *inducing* the use of cars. It is a subtle distinction, but important nonetheless. My family uses cars every day. And the main reason is because there is *no* reasonable alternative in each instance when we do take a car. We’ll be using (some would say “need”) cars for the foreseeable future. But things would be a lot better if a car were not required for reasonably convenient travel.
4340 new parking spaces is an absurdity. And points once again to the need for proper alternatives.
Ron, that route was included (both graphically and by description) in the Mace Boulevard presentation by Fehr and Peers on Tuesday. The route is
(1) North from I-80 on CA-113 to the County Road 29 exit
(2) County Road 29 eastbound, crossing Pole Line Road and continuing on County Road 28H past the Yolo Landfill to a right turn on County Road 105
(3) County Road 105 south to a left turn on County Road 32A
(4) County Road 32A east to the Exit 78 metered onramp of I-80
Thanks, Matt. I guess I’ve never used the last portion of that route, personally.
Wondering if those working at ARC can use that last portion (and/or access point), as well. And if they might do so, when their “normal” access points are backed-up.
Looks like they might just go down road 32A, directly to the access point.
Was there any discussion whatsoever, regarding the impacts of ARC during this open house?
Also, do you happen to know the status/timing of the traffic study, for that proposal?
Also – is there only one access point – right before the Causeway? If so, would that also be the same one that’s used by some (from the south side), who are trying to avoid the access point at Mace? (The ones traveling down the frontage road on the south side of the freeway, which I believe is called 32B?)
Ron O. asked: “Hmm. I “wonder” where that traffic ends up? Perhaps going right past a site proposed for a 4,340-parking space development?”
And Greenwald answered “No. Actually it ends up entering off Road 32 right before the causeway.”
But then we find out today that Brian Alconcel, Caltrans District 3, Chief Traffic Operations stated thst “traffic is utilizing two primary routes. The first is exiting at Pedrick and traveling to Tremont and then County Road 104 which becomes Mace. The second exits at 113 and uses Covell Blvd. to get back on the freeway at Mace Blvd. by the southbound Mace exit.”
Ah. I’ve learned some important stuff here. Thanks for the details, Matt.
There is indeed only one EB onramp just before the causeway at the Fruit Stand. From the dump, you’d cross one of the state’s most dangerous train track crossings, drive the length of 32A, cross under 80 and enter at the Fruit stand. This is the same entrance that those from the south would use if trying to avoid the onramp from Mace.
So what I’m hearing here is that even more traffic will be diverted to 32A which is also the only viable bicycle connection (and an official “bike route) to ride across the causeway. It is a 55 mph road, that of course is driven much faster since the whole point is to beat the freeway. It is clear that the two frontage roads (32A and 32B) are now used more for beating traffic on I-80 than for any other purpose…. and that seems poised to increase.
Darrell:
You make a very important point that 32A (north side of 80) is the primary bicycle route to/from the Causeway. Not only does bypass traffic travel at unsafe speeds there, but occasionally traffic backs up at least a half-mile east from the 80 underpass.
it should also be noted that the Legacy Soccer complex entrance is located on 32B (south side of 80). It is heavily impacted by speeding bypassing traffic and the extremely dangerous pull-out.
Don’t anyone be fooled — that so-called ‘meeting’ was not for the benefit of the public. An open-house is a ‘check-the-box’ for the federal form for the federal dollars — “Yes” – we solicited public input. No presentation, no sitdown, no community meeting, no Q&A, no consensus. Easels! 20 bloody easels! Plus highway engineers and consultants. All you need is a keg and you have a party.
That was an open house. They will of course have an EIR with a full public outreach. I don’t disagree with you, I would have preferred a different format, it made it hard to do a story.
My housemate showed up along with a couple of classmates from UC Davis (by coincidence). They were supposed to do a public meeting and discuss how it worked, what decisions were made, what was discussed. They were somewhat perplexed by the format, and kept wondering if there was going to be a real meeting. They almost abandoned this as what they were looking for and were about to consider something different. I told them this format is a straight out of the consultant playbook, and perhaps they could do their paper about what a failure this sort of format is to the interested public.
Alan M.’s comment would apply equally to the “open house” format for the public ARC CEQA scoping meeting scheduled for Monday, December 2, with the added bonus of it being on an inconvenient day after an extended major holiday when they are likely to get the least turnout. And this is a meeting that was only hastily added after citizens got in front of Council to complain about the process. Straight out of the ol’ playbook, indeed.
The Vanguard should write about what a terrible process this is, but instead we’re likely to get an article complaining about anybody stating that it is a terrible process.
Hilarious. You’ve really got the Vanguard’s “number” down. Cuts right to the core.
Glad that they’re apparently allowing a little more criticism (based upon reality), these days. It’s healthy for the conversation (or as David might say, it’s “fun”). I haven’t seen anyone else able to critique his advocacy, quite as effectively as you.
On the 20th, a VG headline called it a “Workshop”, not an “Open House”… can see why some had different expectations, going in…
So did the Enterprise.
It was also called a “Workshop” in the Enterprise.
Oops. I guess I didn’t refresh before replying! Bill 1, Alan 1, Darell 0.
The article states “According to city officials, the project would then go to an EIR, but the expectation is that this is a project that is at least ten years out – not something that is going to help improve traffic conditions in the near-term.”
It will also not “improve” traffic conditions in the long-term. It is a projected to merely keep the rate.at which conditions get worse lower. For example, in one of the directions projected congestion would be about 100% worse rather than 200% worse (I listed the exact figures in a previous post on a different article).
Exactly. Yet every mention of this project is to “relieve congestion.” Ha. It needs to be made abundantly clear that the current level of congestion will *not* be relieved, no matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars are thrown at extra lanes.
I just wanted to repeat the question to you, from above:
Easy. Just add more lanes, right?
I have a lot of thoughts, but not a lot of time… I’m sorry. Suffice it to say that these are all the same question… and really all have the same answer. At some point we have to realize that we cannot continue incentivizing more driving.
It would be more accurate to say that widening the causeway will prevent future congestion from getting much, much worse. That doesn’t make it an unreasonable proposal.
I-80 is a very important interstate for trucks and through traffic as well as local commute traffic. Adding a high-occupancy lane will help with local commutes. Adding a better bike lane will enhance that mode and perhaps make it more popular. Since there is no reasonable alternative to I-80 for getting across the causeway, it makes sense to keep widening it as demand increases.
I don’t disagree with your desire to enhance mass transit and alternative modes, but I don’t see intentionally constricting the flow of a major US interstate as being a desirable way to get those other things funded and implemented. I don’t see why this is framed as a binary choice.
I wish I had time to be more nuanced, but I do not….
Also accurate to say that widening the causeway will still allow congestion to get much worse, vs much, much worse. I do find it unreasonable to spend that sort of money for no actual improvement in what we have today.
We’ll never agree about adding lanes. We have a lifetime of examples that prove that we cannot pave our way out of congestion. But we sure keep trying it.
I don’t see anybody considering constricting the flow of the interstate. I’d just like the money spent in ways that move more people more conveniently. Instead we will induce more private vehicle use. The only reason that this is binary is because we only really have one pot of money to spent. What we spend on extra lanes doesn’t help us move more people to where they need to go.
>> intentionally constricting the flow of a major US interstate <<
This, of course is a logical fallacy Not wishing to add vehicle lanes cannot be equated with “intentionally constricting.” Or did I misunderstand?
>> Since there is no reasonable alternative <<
Here’s where we agree. And yet… we also don’t currently have more lanes. We need to pay for them, just like we’d need to pay for alternatives. Is $600,000,000 a reasonable amount to pay for more lanes that will not make travel batter than it is today? Which should we pay for? Reasonable, sustainable and scalable alternatives that move more people more efficiently… or adding more lanes? When we run out of room to fit the ever-expanding fleet of cars, at some point we must cry uncle. If not, it will be cried for us. But we’ll have some great new lanes!
What informs your opinions on these matters, Don? From my end it feels quite like if I were to tell you how best to grow plants. And while the last bit may sound a bit snarky, the question is for real. Are you applying what many people would call “common sense” to this? (Like for me that would be “the plant is dying, so clearly it needs more water!” Or are you coming from study, observation and/or experience in this field?
I wish this were true, but it’s not. See: The L.A. Basin. They just keep trying to add lanes, and people keep thinking that’s a solution. And it never is, so they try again, more lanes, more traffic, more lanes, more traffic . . .
I don’t understand why they aren’t fixing the real problem – the six lanes to three lane merge, they need to fix that. This doesn’t.
It comes from three lanes, turns to six, back to three . . . except for people jockying for position, that shouldn’t in itself cause the jams . . . and even when there isn’t a jam in Davis, there is often a jam getting on the Causeway, even thought it is just three lanes straight over. The real problem is ALL THE CARS.
Alan: Yes, but that’s what causes the jam from about 113 to Richards – and that’s what’s causing people to jump the queue by getting off the freeway and bypassing it at Tremont or elsewhere. The Causeway problem is secondary to this one.
Alan… you nailed it… 3 to 6 to three… “aye, there’s the rub”… poetically, and in an informed engineering fashion as well…
Maybe because it’s not the “real problem”? Do you have any evidence showing that it might be the “real problem”?
I am thrilled that you’re onboard with that, David. It is the cheapest thing to start with and it may well have the larges impact on “improvement” to this freeway corridor. I’ll try to comment a bit more on that in today’s article from you were you bring it up in more detail.
In my view, that is the most obvious bang-for-the-buck fix, no matter what else is decided to try.
Alan… yes it is “ALL THE CARS” of course. We can no longer accommodate all the cars we have, much less all the cars to come… noting that anything we do to accommodate what we’ve got is certain to induce more. Ug.
But for the other part… you are minimizing the effect of “people jockeying for position.” as if it were insignificant. It is not. The friction of massive merging (six lanes to three in a short distance) has a significant effect on congestion.
Then… when that bubble slows folks down, more drivers are tempted to exit before the bubble, and then try to merge on before the causeway. And then more frictional merges are created that cause the congestion to be somewhat solid from the causeway back to the bubble. It is a lovely self-filling disaster. And while not all of the freeway issue is caused by that bubble, it is still a part of it. A part that is the easiest and cheapest to remedy.
Rik,
I don’t wish to speak for David’s choice of phrase, but I’m happy to defend the bubble as a significant problem even if not the *real* problem.
To have real numbers, the bubble should be studied with temporary solutions that minimize it.
But even without that, I have enough anecdotal evidence to convince me that this bubble is the initiator of the massive congestion for the evening commute EB through Davis. Before we have a ton of cars on the road, nobody changes lanes to fill the bubble. No reason to because there is no gain to be had. But as soon as traffic slows to about the speed limit, folks start filling the lanes of the bubble, zoom by the others, and then try to merge with them. This quickly and artificially slows the main lanes to well below the speed limit, inciting more and more drivers to merge right to fill the bubble, and so it continues. In a matter of minutes, the bubble gets choked to a crawl. BUT… after the bubble has been completely stuffed, the freeway is again freed up to the speed limit starting just after the bubble when the three lanes are again organized. <-this is the key to understanding the effect of the bubble. Eventually Waze and experienced commuters realize that the bubble is just ahead, and more drivers are taken on bypass routes. The bubble remains, getting ever worse, and then these bypassers begin merging on at 32B and at Mace. These additional frictional merges begin to stuff up the area west of the causeway, eventually tying in with the bubble before Richards. It remains that way until people stop commuting for the day.
Stop the bubble, and the three lanes remain organized and moving better for longer. It will eventually get stuffed simply because we have too many cars and not enough places to put them, but the temporary extra capacity and resultant merging it creates, and the bypassing that results from THAT, is an issue that needs attention.
What we call “road diets” work because we keep the line of cars organized. Vying for position messes everything up. Needless merges are a disaster.
Darrell: thanks for the detailed explanation. I understand and agree with the concept of frictional delays as a resultant of the “bubble.”
However, the idea that is the “real problem” as Greenwald states, is ludicrous.
And wouldn’t fixing the “bubble” ultimately just result mostly in getting cars slightly more quickly through the I-80 curve between 113 and Richards so they can arrive at the actual “real problem” of the backup that originates in the Mace and Causeway area slightly earlier? A “hurry up and wait” situation, so to speak?
As note: In my experience driving the 113 to Richards stretch of eastbound 80 during the peak afternoon worst times and in looking at Waze/Google Map segment/speed data, I have not seen that “after the bubble has been completely stuffed, the freeway is again freed up to the speed limit starting just after the bubble when the three lanes are again organized.“ The traffic might move marginally faster at times, but definitely does not return to speeds even closer to the speed limit.
“Road diets” don’t just work because they organize traffic. They also reduce traffic through the inverse of the “induced demand” principle.
Hi Rik,
>> And wouldn’t fixing the “bubble” ultimately just result mostly in getting cars slightly more quickly through the I-80 curve between 113 and Richards so they can arrive at the actual “real problem” <<
When the bubble delay is encountered, hundreds of drivers/hour are incentivized to bypass the freeway, and that significantly exacerbates the “backup” at Mace/Causeway. So if the bubble is removed, and those drivers instead stay on the freeway, there are far fewer cars trying to merge on at Mace (only the relatively few that originate in Davis), thus there would be many fewer frictional merges that today extend the Mace congestion back to join the bubble…. thus sending ever more to bypass the freeway and cause more congestion. Rinse and repeat. So I’d have to say that the result is likely not so simple. But even if it were that simple, shouldn’t *any*thing that moves folks forward a bit quicker be considered an improvement? Especially if it can be accomplished relatively easily and cheaply?
The typical driver’s goal is to get ahead of the congestion, and when they merge back on, the traffic slows to accommodate them, and the congestion is pushed back further. I guess that’s why we call it a “backup.” Drivers who are trying to beat the problem ARE a part of the problem. (sorry, I was just trying out different ways of saying this, mostly for my own benefit. 🙂
I agree that when driving during the worst times that the Mace “backup” extends all the way back to combine into one enormous mess with the bubble. By that time the perpetual motion machine of congestion has worked its magic. I generally experience the bubble when things are just beginning to turn bad *before* it is one solid clog. It is a regular experience for me to see (for myself directly AND to view it on the traffic apps) that the bubble is all stopped traffic when directly after that, the traffic is moving far better… until you catch up to the mess created by all the bypassers getting on at Mace/ Causeway. I’ve been seeing this quite obviously on the traffic apps almost every day. Super frustrating when I get on at 113 and want to exit on Richards. I’m quite often back to a reasonable speed again just as I exit, while the previous 15 minutes were mostly spent stopped or inching.
BTW, all of this talk about me driving is really going to confuse all the people who think that I hate cars and think that nobody should ever drive. (Note that I’d much rather NOT drive, but when there is no more convenient way to get where I’m going…. well… ) At least I almost always have a full car (4-5 in a sedan).
If we keep everybody on the freeway, the average time for everybody to transport themselves across that corridor should improve. (this is supported somewhat universally, but also specifically in this corridor when the onramp meters are adjusted to show the effect of merging) When folks talk about how they save 10-15 minutes by bypassing, they then become part of the reason for the congestion that they’re bypassing. (As well as creating havoc on the city streets). I would so love to have a way to test what happens if everybody were forced to stay on the freeway, and the freeway remained three lanes from Dixon to Richards.
>> “Road diets” don’t just work because they organize traffic. They also reduce traffic through the inverse of the “induced demand” principle. <<
When a “road diet” works as intended (which is most often, though not always!) the traffic gets from point A to Point B with the same or better travel time. AND just as many cars pass through it as before. I don’t know enough about the “uninduced demand” principle to comment. But it is not logical to drive a longer distance when the drive time is the same or less on the main route. (But then drivers aren’t always logical, I admit. And neither are the traffic apps. I’ve been routed on a complicated 15-mile-extra route for a 90-mile drive simply to theoretically save one minute of drive-time.)
Ug. Sorry for quite a bit of redundancy. When I can’t decide how best to say something, I just say it several different ways. 🙂
Cheers,
Darell
When the population of the region has increased and the traffic infrastructure has not kept pace with that, the result here is a daily traffic backup. There are places where adding lanes simply shifts the choices drivers make (induced demand). There is only one other way across the Yolo Bypass in the region, and that is further north on I-5. It’s not as though drivers have a lot of choices to make. So in fact: if demand has increased, and backlogs are being created, then intentionally failing to respond to that demand is a process of intentionally constricting it. You see a daily traffic jam and you have a way to reduce that problem, and you choose not to do so. Is there some alternative to “intentionally constricting it” that I should see?
The recommendations of the traffic engineers. I have yet to see a specific proposal for a massive expansion of mass transit and bike lanes that is likely to reduce the congestion at the choke point of the Yolo Causeway. If you know of such a proposal, with specifics about how many new buses, how much rail to add, how many bikes are likely to make the daily transit across the Yolo Bypass instead of driving, and how effective that is all likely to be, I’d be interested to read it. We have very specific traffic engineering proposals here. I get the sense that your opposition to increasing the number of auto lanes either arises from a philosophical basis or from the general principles of new urbanism. Not from actual specific alternatives that you can cite.
So if you’ve got a specific way to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on alternatives that you think will be equally effective, please post it. And please don’t just reply by denigrating traffic engineers. That’s pretty much just a rhetorical fallacy, to borrow a phrase.
(You probably shouldn’t ask me that question, at least. Because I definitely have a suggestion.)
It is interesting how at one time, the freeway systems were adequate, as was the water supply, etc. And everyone was able to drive massive cars with fins, without any concern. Lawns/yards were “allowed”, as were fireplaces. Also, PG&E provided consistent, inexpensive power, without burning down communities. Housing was affordable, even in places such as San Francisco.
Didn’t last long, though. 😉
I’ve heard a rumor that there weren’t even any potholes, back then.
And of course, college was free (or almost free).
I’ll leave aside the social equality concerns of that time, though.
Thank you for the polite engagement, Don. Seriously, this is the type of disagreement/discourse that we need more of. At least until the end there.
>> When the population of the region has increased and the traffic infrastructure has not kept pace with that, the result here is a daily traffic backup. <<
Right. The private vehicle infrastructure has not, and cannot keep up with these increases. And vehicle infrastructure expansions of the past have accelerated the increase in “need.” My desire is to move more people and goods more efficiently and in a more scalable fashion. My desire is not to move more cars from A to B as you seem to suggest is needed.
>> You see a daily traffic jam and you have a way to reduce that problem <<
There have been no proposals that show a reduction in the congestion that we have today. Choosing to take a path of NOT improving things is the real “intentionally constricting” issue that you speak of, I guess. Again, this needs to be about moving people and goods, NOT about desperately trying to accommodate single-occupant private vehicles as we’ve done for decades. People do not equal cars. (same argument I make against the “need” to freely park cars all over town… due to the assumption a person in a car is the only thing that equals “customer.”)
>> The recommendations of the traffic engineers. I have yet to see a specific proposal for a massive expansion of mass transit and bike lanes that is likely to reduce the congestion at the choke point of the Yolo Causeway. <<
And there is the crux of the problem. The alternatives to ever-more travel lanes are not being considered nor studied. Up to this point, we again agree. And let me point out again that you have also not seen a proposal for lane-addition that will reduce the congestion in this corridor. So what we need: A way to move more people and goods more efficiency. What we’re concentrating on: Moving more cars.
>>We have very specific traffic engineering proposals here. <<
Well, not really. We have some broad strokes with several options. All of which add lanes, and all of which end in much more congestion than we have today (vs. much, much more congestion as you put it). I still have seen little emphasis on the easy fix that we *know* is messing up EB flow: The bubble that adds too much capacity from before 113 to half a mile before the Richards Exit. The frictional re-merging is the devil.
>> I get the sense that your opposition to increasing the number of auto lanes either arises from a philosophical basis or from the general principles of new urbanism. <<
My opposition comes from education in the field of induced demand, observation, road design experience, the study of modern best-practices, and the reality that we see all around us after every recent freeway lane addition project. Perhaps reading up on the 405 lane addition in LA would be a good place to start studying. My opposition comes from a purely practical place. Transportation is hugely important. I equate it to the importance of communication. It is not possible to solve our transportation needs by forever accommodate more driving. This is every bit as much a land-use planning issue. We continue to build car commutes into our planning, as Ron so accurately and consistently is pointing out.
>> And please don’t just reply by denigrating traffic engineers. That’s pretty much just a rhetorical fallacy, to borrow a phrase. <<
Wow. Well, that’s not a good way to keep me engaged. While I have no intention of denigrating traffic engineers (this problem goes well above the traffic engineers), I also have no desire to be instructed on how I should and shouldn’t reply. I learned long ago to not reply substantively to straw-man arguments. This issue is enormous and regional, and it extends well beyond road design. We know what doesn’t work, and that’s where we are currently planning to spend tons of money.