by Steve Tracy –
We have also watched the unprecedented opportunity to reconstruct the street with federal stimulus package funds go by the wayside because the City failed to simply ask for the money. Still, we will try to put a good face on it and join others in the community once again to urge action toward the one solution that is low cost, does not impede motor vehicle flow, reduces risk for all users of the corridor, and beautifies the street.
This creates multiple hazards: those drivers may impatiently make an unsafe turn and get hit, they may be rear-ended by an inattentive driver behind them, an impatient driver may make an unsafe lane change to avoid the stopped vehicle and hit a car in the right lane, or the stopped car may block the view of a driver coming the other way who makes a left turn into the path of an unseen vehicle in the right lane. And so on.
None of this, of course, includes the obvious risks to pedestrians crossing the multiple lane street or to bicyclists who are all over the place in the corridor, crossing 5th, riding along it in the gutter, in the vehicle lanes, and riding both directions on the narrow sidewalks allegedly reserved for pedestrians.
The solution is to combine those left turn movements and provide a place for those drivers to wait in a shared center left turn lane. (The left turn lanes will leave enough room for small pedestrian islands mid-street at the crosswalks.) This leaves two through lanes on the street, one in each direction. The remaining roadway space can then be striped for bike lanes. Those missing bike lanes, by the way, are the only significant gap in the bike lane network that otherwise serves us so well on major streets in Davis. They have long been on the Primary Bicycle Network map in the General Plan (Figure 23), but not painted on the street.
All of this–two through lanes, two bike lanes, and a center median/turn lane will fit within the existing curbs. This solution can be implemented with just paint and new left turn signals at the F and G Street intersections. This solution, tagged with the unfortunate “road diet” moniker, has been employed in literally hundreds of situations all across the country with great success. Two months ago nationally recognized street design and walkability expert Dan Burden presented evidence of the benefits to a crowded workshop in the Community Chambers that included images of 50 streets. Studies conducted on many of these streets showed a huge decrease in accidents, often 50% or more, and even greater reduction in injuries, due to slower vehicle speeds. These other towns have seen increases in pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and NO significant impact on vehicle travel. This includes the number of vehicles in the corridor, travel times, etc.
An added benefit is that in many communities this simple redesign became the catalyst for new development, redevelopment, increased property values, and increased business activity. There are no losers with this solution, and there is no significant “spillover” traffic to other streets.
Four years ago the City Council had an opportunity to approve this solution. It is spelled out in detail in the adopted General Plan, and directed by numerous policies that promote alternative transportation and safe streets. Opposition, lead by the downtown business community, prompted the Council to conclude that “the community isn’t ready” for this solution.
This opposition was fueled primarily by a bogus (there is no better term) computer simulation funded by the Public Works Department that was manipulated to show the road diet configuration would increase peak hour congestion. A video simulation reflecting these results was shown to a standing room only audience at the Police Department meeting room, and left many with the mistaken impression that this solution was a failure.
After a long struggle, advocates of the safer street forced a correction that reflected proper modeling techniques. This vastly improved vehicle flow in the simulation, which has been the real world experience with other streets that have received this road diet treatment. The new video simulation was shown to two members of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association, and revealed smooth and efficient vehicle flow. The Public Works Department refused to schedule another public meeting to show that video. The next City Council hearing was attended by many people opposed to the road diet because they were not given a chance to see the new film. Later, staff in the engineering firm that conducted the model effort stated they were instructed to destroy the video and the model.
So nothing changed on the street, and the high accident rate continues. Year after year ten percent of the accidents in the entire City of Davis occur on 5th Street. Thirty-five in 2007. Thirty in 2008, eight of them involving bicyclists and pedestrians. There were six accidents in just January and February of this year. Of those, four involved people who were not in motor vehicles, and all four were injured. Many of these accidents would not have occurred if this street had been reconfigured four years ago.
So this long evaluation process extends out as the accident and injury toll continues. City officials have shown a willingness to ask for outside funds to improve streets downtown: There is a nearly $400,000 grant of federal funds on the way to do a makeover for 2nd Street downtown. Half of that amount would probably be sufficient to fix 5th Street.
There were six accidents on the 2nd Street corridor downtown last year. Two of them were on 2nd Street itself, and the rest on cross streets near 2nd. Both 2nd Street accidents were on rainy nights at 2 AM as the bars were closing. There was only one injury last year in the 2nd Street corridor, a passenger in a rear-end vehicle crash on B Street near 2nd.
By contrast, the same stretch of 5th Street west of the tracks saw two dozen accidents last year. These resulted in 13 injuries, and involved four bicyclists and two pedestrians. Yet not a dime of federal funding was sought to address this problem.
To move on from safety to the environment, there are also some clear policy directives and clear benefits that point to the road diet solution. Obviously, the chaotic nature of the current street is an impediment to walking and bicycling. The high accident toll this non-motorized population sees is testament to their determination. Imagine how many more people would come out on foot and on bikes if the street were safer. These activities are healthy, pleasant, and non-polluting. Numerous General Plan policies direct the City to foster these modes of transportation. There is also external pressure and encouragement from sources as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Conference of Mayors, the federal Center for Disease Control, the U.S. EPA, and the California State Legislature. Communities around the globe are taking local action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing in the status quo on 5th Street does that.
A recent independent transportation model exercise in the School of Engineering at UC Davis reveals that the road diet alternative reduces stopped vehicle idle time, and the pointless pollution associated with it, by 53%. Davis should leap at this opportunity to show progress in reducing climate change.
The business community’s fear of negative impacts from the loss of customers is valid. Many small, local businesses work hard to maintain a narrow margin of profit. But the experience in dozens of communities all across America, and the results of the two most recent traffic models, show that this redesign will not create congestion, or spillover traffic, or drive customers away.
At the public hearing four years ago, several people who live far from downtown Davis spoke up to say they do not like shopping downtown, because they hate driving on 5th Street. They will come back downtown if the street is a calmer place to drive. Moreover, some of the loss of business downtown merchants may be feeling currently is not due to the economy, but because nearby residents are refusing to patronize merchants who are so openly hostile to their personal safety. We value the downtown–it is our neighborhood shopping district. We try to be good citizens and not drive three blocks, but we feel left out in the cold by merchants who don’t want to help us get there safely on foot or by bicycle.
Pedestrians and bicyclists should be the customers downtown merchants prefer most. We don’t pollute, we don’t crowd the streets, and we don’t take up scarce parking spaces. It is a mystery to us why so many merchants have silently stood by while their leadership shows hostility and disdain for those who want a safer street.
The Chamber of Commerce’s lead on the 5th Street issue says the current accident toll is an acceptable level of risk. I personally have a masters degree in transportation planning, nearly 30 years experience in the field, and work on street design projects all over California. But he dismissed me as “a fundraiser” to people in the community.
At a public hearing that same individual called a graphic showing the intersection of 5th and D Streets that was prepared by a graduating senior in Landscape Architecture at UCD “a cartoon.” He attacked that image because the turn pockets were too short to handle the demand. They were drawn that short so that some full median landscaping could show the potential of the redesign in the small space the Davis Enterprise had for the image. Moreover, what is the total number of cars turning left in the entire peak hour from the turn pocket he ridiculed as too short? Twenty, one every three minutes. This does not require long turn pockets.
We wish this level of attack was beneath the business community, but we try to stay focused on the facts, the real issues, and the evidence from the many examples built in other places. Maybe it is time for the business community at large to reevaluate the position their leadership is so locked into. A position that is so unfriendly to so many good customers.
Finally, the report that will go to the City Council tonight has one other option that is up for further study. It would leave the four-lane street in place, but create bicycle paths or mixed pedestrian/bicycle paths in the City-owned right-of-way behind the curbs. This would almost certainly require the removal of dozens if not all of the more than 100 trees lining the corridor.
This is an unacceptable trade-off, to get a solution that may be more dangerous than the existing problem. It would create bike paths in very hazardous locations with numerous new conflict points at the nearly 30 driveways and15 alleys and cross streets that intersect 5th Street in the corridor. This alternative should be dropped from further study tonight. It is pointless to consider it, spend time and money on that evaluation, or use the paper to print out the results.
That said, there is really no need to consider any other alternatives beyond tonight, or to continue this process. We have seen from the two most recent models that the 2 lane plus turn lane configuration is superior in terms of traffic flow. We have heard from the bicycle community about the value of this link to the bicycle facility network. We have a large body of General Plan guidance that points to this solution. We have seen the positive effects of this solution in other communities. We have a high degree of external pressure to do the right thing to create complete for all users of the corridor. And finally, Davis wants to be a leader in the struggle against global warming by promoting alternatives to motor vehicle travel.
It’s time for our leadership to show their stuff and bring this community back to the forefront. Let’s not have the opening of the Bicycle Museum marred because at the other end of Central Park is evidence that Davis seems determined to be the last community in California to embrace a dangerous example of outdated transportation thinking.
I fully support Steve Tracy’s proposed plan.
So why is the business community so hostile to this solution for fifth street? Is it stupidity, or an unwillingness to admit they were wrong once upon a time? And why is Public Works so against this new plan? Because the business community is?
The downtown merchants as a whole seem to be against anything having to do w change. They were against Borders, they were against Target, they are against the road diet. And they wonder why many of us don’t shop downtown? Why should we, w their negative attitude!
“So why is the business community so hostile to this solution for fifth street?”
I wonder this myself. I can’t help but think about it every time I shop at Davis Ace Hardware. Why would the owner of any business think that 30 accidents in a year on a street running past their business is an acceptable level? Last night, Jennifer Anderson repeatedly urged the council to continue to study all options, including one that would remove all the trees along 5th Street between B and L streets – a ridiculous solution that the community would never allow – which only highlighted how intransigent she is about making changes along 5th street actually. The DDBA opposition against making 5th street safer is really confusing and makes no sense, when compared with the lack of opposition to making changes on 3rd street last year and on 2nd street coming up, to all the limits on parking (90 mins, no reparking) that make shopping in downtown Davis a real challenge.)
I can’t help but see the irony that this issue was discussed at the same meeting where the council and staff were crowing about what a bike friendly town Davis is.
Pedestrians and bicyclists should be the customers downtown merchants prefer most. We don’t pollute, we don’t crowd the streets, and we don’t take up scarce parking spaces^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AND–Let me just add; merchants really prefer those who drive because they can buy more stuff! THINK about it; when you go to Costco, do you ride your bike or walk? Of course not! If you walk or ride to Peet’s that’s one thing-buying merchandise to sustain the downtown means, most often, that you drive because you have to get it home one way or another.
re: “…all the limits on parking (90 mins, no reparking) that make shopping in downtown Davis a real challenge.)”
If this is a real challenge for you, you have my sympathy. Really, all you need do is, after 90 minutes or two hours, simply repark on the next block. People’s insistence on this blog that they need the government to step in and make up for their own personal lack of sustainability is
mind-boggling. That government is best which governs least, especially in these times when we should all be doing our part to lessen the strain on government and thus lower everybody’s taxes. This multi-billion dollar Fifth Street pork project is only yet another means whereby the taxman gets a bigger take out of everybody’s pocket. Eighty-six it.
No sympathy is needed. I work within the rules of the downtown world just fine. I’m just pointing out that the DDBA’s arguments against the redesign are hard to understand given that they are supportive of other road diet projects within the downtown.
Brian, this is a public safety issue, not mere convenience and a redesign will also be more sustainable. Studies show that a redesign of 5th Street will result in fewer accidents (less property damage), lower pollution (much less time idling at lights), and less time to travel through the corridor (less wasted time). If sustainability is what you are interested in, then you should support the project.
Ryan is correct… this is a public safety issue… Ryan is incorrect (based on his lack of sources, and my research of communities who have implemented these) that “studies have shown” that Fifth Street (its legally correct designation) “…will result in fewer accidents (actually they are crashes… accidents imply that no one was to blame), less pollution…”… fact is that some ‘road diets’ work great… a good tool in the right circumstances… and they can fail miserably under other circumstances: including increases of crashes, more injuries & death… some municipalities have had to reverse them, strictly on safety issues… there is no way to design streets and/or intersections to be “safe”… driver/bicyclist/pedestrian behaviors are just that… we cannot design around DUI’s, impatience/stupidity/combination… I, for one, believe the road diet could have negative safety consequences (from existing conditions) due to short distances between intersections & high left turn movements within the corridor, particularly @ F,G,E, & C… I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I want to be in a position to say “I told you so” when the Council caves in… 99% guarantee that they will… and, when it fails, they will be sued & blame City staff & not the advocates… (who will NOT be sued)…
“I, for one, believe the road diet could have negative safety consequences (from existing conditions) due to short distances between intersections & high left turn movements within the corridor, particularly @ F,G,E, & C… I know this will fall on deaf ears, but I want to be in a position to say “I told you so” when the Council caves in…”
I don’t get the logic here. There will be short distances between intersections, whether we have a road diet or not. However, w a road diet, all left turning cars are in the dedicated center lane. So no cars will be waiting for left turning traffic. I would think that might help cut down on left turn confusion, and keep traffic more steadily flowing. But most importantly, there will be bike lanes all along Fifth street, which I don’t think anyone would argue are needed. Also, the simple road diet, which just requires new paint and two new lights, is relatively cheap. So I guess I just don’t get where you are coming from…nor do I get where the downtown businesses are coming from in opposing this simple solution to the lack of bike lanes problem.
And by the way, I don’t think it is clear at all that the City Council is going to approve this – they have resisted so far bc of the DDBA – which fights everything having to do w the status quo…
To Aware.
That’s an odd tag to put on your message, since you are not sharing
the facts you say you are aware of with the rest of us. First, a
couple of nits to pick. Legal designation or not, the City is
changing out the street signs on the numbered streets to replace the
spelling out of the number with just the simple number. The argument
has been that this makes it easier for our many residents and visitors
who grew up with languages other than English to navigate. Next, the
term “accident” means nobody expected it to happen, or wanted it to
happen. Using that term does not make it impossible to assign fault.
Now to the critical stuff: Once again we have a correspondent who
claims to have researched road diets but who neglects to share the
specifics of that research with us. What towns have done them and
have them “fail miserably” as you say they did? I do this for a
living, and have not seen a single road diet fail miserably, or even
slightly. The 1 1/2 situations where road diet redesigns were
reversed were due to political decisions forced by opponents who
refused to see the positive results that were right in front of them.
Not because the redesign failed.
So what towns? Where is your accident data? Who did you contact? I
will assume that a failure to share this information with the readers
of the Vanguard is a capitulation on the technical issues of accident
safety.
Your turn.
Mr Tracy… when on this blog, have you cited the communities where it has implemented, worked? You have “researched” this, yet you criticize me for not citing my sources, when you have not either. You cite your expertise, yet you demand a higher level of “proof” than you have supplied. I do not “capitulate” my argument… there is a city in Washington state (which I will try to provide all access to the data… but I have family, other duties to attend to too)… where there was an increase in pedestrian-related crashes, including at least one child related fatality… even Dan Burden does not claim to be a traffic engineeringexpert… he claims to be a photographer by training, and he has had affilliations with some great engineers, including Michael Wallwork, one of the proponents of road diets WHEN THEY ARE APPROPRIATE, and both are supporters of modern roundabouts, as appropriate. Michael Wallwork I have worked with, and have great respect, as I do Dan Burden, but even he gave caveats in his recent presentation in Davis, that road diets are not a panacea… your post seems to imply that if someone cannot conclusively prove you are wrong, you are right… yet the standard it seems you expect from the city is if prior analysis cannot be “proved” to be true, they are wrong… that may be a good liberal arts standard, but fails in a scientific light… hp
back over the net…
hortense.
Thank you for responding. I think maybe you have not been with us
from the beginning, given your comment that I have not shown any
evidence to support my claims. The simplest way to catch up is to go
to the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association website to review our
latest material. Then go through some articles from earlier this year
on the Vanguard. You can do a search of the term “5th Street” using
the Vanguard site. The 5th posting (appropriate) on the list is the
article I wrote back in February. That has some background and a link
to an early version of our presentation. Skip over that link for now.
You can reach the Old North material at http://www.oldnorthdavis.net which is
our home page. Then click on the link “Fifth Street Redesign
Material” to get to my latest PowerPoint. That presentation will give
you some detail on the proposal, the benefits, the experience in quite
a few other cities, and some nice pictures.
Please pay particular attention to the accident reduction statistics
and the vehicle count numbers. You will find evidence of real world
successes in many different situations with this redesign. You will
see accident numbers going down, often far down, with the redesign.
Also you will note that in many cases traffic volumes on the street
went UP after the lanes were reorganized to produce a smooth flow of
traffic. This is hardly a recipe for failure.
We have never claimed it is a panacea, nor used that term. What we
can expect, though, is a significant reduction in the abnormally high
accident toll, reduced speeding, and no serious delays in travel time
through the corridor.
We did not have the preliminary results of a UC Davis Engineering
School traffic model yet when this version of our presentation was
prepared. We do now, and that model run shows that the road diet
design is superior to the 4 lane design for through traffic in the
corridor on all five performance measures:
1. Travel time through the corridor is reduced 14% with the road
diet. That design is 7 seconds slower from B to L Streets in the
evening rush hour, but almost 50 seconds faster in the westbound
direction.
2. Average delay to individual drivers drops 33% with the road diet.
Same pattern, slightly more delay eastbound, but huge improvements
westbound.
3. Average stop delay (the time cars sit idling, and polluting) goes
down a whopping 53% with the road diet design. This is critical if we
care about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
4. The number of times the average vehicle must come to a complete
stop during a trip through the corridor is 31% less with the road diet.
5. And finally, the two lane street with turn pockets is capable of
handling a bit more traffic (2%) than the 4 lane design.
It is also important for the doubters to know that this model run was
done with 25% more vehicles in the corridor that are currently on the
street. This allows for a significant increase in traffic from
Target, the West Campus development, or any other sources you might
expect to see before we run out of petroleum.
There is no negative impact on traffic flow. And people who claim
this redesign will back up traffic on side streets have been misled by
a misinterpretation of this kind of model. They assume people will
prefer to sit in lines behind stop signs on side streets rather than
reroute themselves to the signalized intersections that work better.
There are no losers with this design, so why not give pedestrians and
bicyclists a fair share of this street, as a large body of policy in
our adopted General Plan tells us to?
Please respond if you have any questions about the material I have
directed you to.
Thank you.
Steve Tracy
Old North Davis Neighborhood Association