One of the key findings from other communities is that road diets do not mean that fewer vehicles can utilize the road. In fact, his research and examples from other communities show that they can sometimes counter-intuitively better utilize the road with fewer lanes because the flow is smoother.
The staff report looks at three different options.
1. Maintain the existing four lane road configuration, provide improvements to alternative corridors for cyclists and implement improvements that address the principal safety issues for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists within the Fifth Street corridor, identified above under “Common Themes from the Public.”
2. Maintain a four lane roadway, provide a bicycle corridor within the Fifth Street right of way and implement safety improvements for all modes of travel, and
3. Reduce the number of lanes from 4 to 3, provide on-street bicycle lanes and implement safety improvements for all modes of travel.
While these categories are broad they breakdown each of the categories somewhat.
Category 1. Four lanes of traffic on Fifth Street
• Intersection controls (stop signs or signal) at D and/or J Streets
• Right turn in and right turn out only at some cross streets (C, E, K..)
• Embedded lights in striped crosswalks at intersections
• Bike lanes on Fourth Street with elimination of one stop sign and/or creation of a Bike Path across Central Park
• Widened median at C Street for pedestrian refuge area
• Cul-de-sac of some cross streets to eliminate motor vehicle turning movements at some intersections (C, E, I or K Streets)
• Extend existing Fifth Street path south on L Street down to Fourth StreetCategory 2. Four lanes of traffic and a bike corridor in the Fifth Street right of way
• Eliminate trees in the landscaped area at back of curb on one, or both sides of Fifth Street to construct bike lanes.
• Eliminate trees in the landscaped area at back of curb on one, or both sides of Fifth Street to construct a multi-use path.
• Cul-de-sac some cross streets to eliminate turning conflicts with bike facility at some intersections (C, E, I or K Streets)Category 3. Reduce the number of lanes on Fifth Street from 4 to 3 and include bike lanes
• Install median islands to eliminate left turn movements at C and E Streets
• Modify A Street intersection to provide safe bike access from westbound Russell to UC Davis campus (Bike only signal phase, storage area for queued bikes, etc.)
• Install traffic calming measures in Old East and Old North Davis neighborhoods to discourage cut-through traffic.
• Replace existing signals at F and G Streets to full eight-phase signals
The first question people are going to rightfully ask is how much this is going to cost. It looks like they will need somewhere between $30,000 to $40,000 just for data relating to pedestrian and bicycle counts. The problem I see with such an analysis is that the current setup discourages both. The presentation in March demonstrated that by making the roadway more friendly to bikes and pedestrians, you completely change the dynamics.
The second impact fiscally will be additional analysis on traffic for another $40,000 to $50,000 and also community meetings, commissions, and other outreach.
Back in 2005/06, the city had roughly $400,000 for the Fifth Street Corridor project and failed to act on it.
The $85,000 to study the issue will not come from the general fund. Instead half will come from the Redevelopment Agency Capital Project funds and the other half from Road Impact Fee Funds. Again, this is not coming from the general fund.
From my standpoint Category 3 is the closest to what we need to do, but I am not sure it really goes far enough. This has been said before, but it bears repeating, this is a huge safety issue. The fire service talks about the public safety impact of their department but they ignore the public safety issues that we cannot address because of how much money their single department receives. This is the type of project that is long overdue and can not only be an improvement to public safety, it can also be a huge boost to the economy by making the downtown more accessible.
Business has fought against these changes tooth and nail. But why? Most of the vehicles access downtown through town at key points either B Street where they already turn, or G Street from the Westbound direction. This would not impact that traffic. It would make the traffic that flows between B and G smoother and will enable people to better travel through the core and access the downtown. Moreover it will do much to open up the downtown to bike and foot traffic that is impeded at the moment by Fifth Street. Working with the city, downtown merchants could greatly benefit from such a project.
All they need to do is see the impact in other towns. The road changes have transformed the streets and neighborhoods in other communities. And the key data is that the road still handles the same flow of traffic per hour, it just does it in a slower and safer fashion that actually makes it more amenable to doing business.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
more money, more money, more money which the city doesn’t have and won’t have anytime soon-if its a grant(aka FREE money) WE get stuck(or F##ked)with the tab down the road when the current stone-heads in city hall and council have moved onto other things. How does one cul-de-sac cross streets and do the residents on those streets know this or have they known it?? AND: Cul-de-sac some cross streets to eliminate turning conflicts with bike facility at some intersections (C, E, I or K Streets) What does this have to do with ped and bike safety on 5th, which is supposedly what this is ALL about–Hey, I live on L street…why can’t we cul-de-sac it too? Bikes would be safer here on L too….
I quote from Rich in the other thread: “It is situations like this why it is so important for our elected officials to be wise in their ordinary budgeting, especially when it comes to labor contracts.”
In my opinion, we need to marshal our resources precisely so that we can do things like these. I’m not convinced we don’t have the money to do this btw, there is money available in redevelopment for it and we have already squandered grant money and other resources for it, but can probably get into stimulus money and perhaps even back into LAFCO money like we did before.
This issue (5th Street w no bicycle paths) has been a problem for so long, and has been talked to death. Let’s get on w it. We all know 5th Street needs bicycle and pedestrian paths. I don’t care how you do it, just do it. The downtown businesses be damned! Downtown businesses are always against something that includes a change from the status quo…
I agree that we need to do something with 5th Street. The 3rd proposal is the closest to what I have seen presented previously and saw at Dan Burden’s presentation. My understanding was that under consideration was a scenario where there is only one through lane in each direction between L and B, bike lanes, long left turn pockets so cars are not stacking up, and medians.
It is my understanding that there is federal money available, but we have to move fast to apply for it. I think June 30 is the deadline. We have been talking this to death for years. Let’s just do it. Staff is just dragging their feet. Fire the lot of them and get someone who is willing to think in the 21st century. The Burden presentation showed it can be done, it is not rocket science, it calms traffic and actually facilitates steady flow.
I don’t see how making 5th Street and thereby the downtown more bicycle and pedestrian friendly is going to harm downtown businesses. Quite the contrary, and that is what was shown in the Burden presentation.
The solution is there, in place. Called sidewalks, which bicyclists need to be educated to use instead of cluttering up traffic.
Save tons of money on PowerPoint presentations, construction, etc. We’re in a Depression, folks, time to get real and make do with what’s there.
Also, MyView states: “downtown businesses be damned”? What planet are you from? Davis is nothing without downtown businesses…just another wide spot along I-80. Whyn’t you move to Fairfield, MyView, and stop cluttering up this blog with your narcissistic MyPrattle?
“Called sidewalks, which bicyclists need to be educated to use instead of cluttering up traffic.”
I think that’s in violation of California Vehicle Code.
If the money’s there, this is worth a shot. If not, we can survive* delaying its implementation for a few years.
*I know that there are more accidents with the current configuration; so I don’t mean to dismiss that in saying “we can survive.” But given the dangers, people need to be more careful. A terrible trend I’ve experienced lately from other drivers (though not on 5th, which I normally avoid) is passing on the right in an intersection. That is illegal and it’s very dangerous. Yet I see it 5-10 times each week. I’ll be waiting to turn left at an intersection, the car coming in the opposite direction is signalling to turn left, and as I start to make my left, the car behind him races around to pass and nearly plows into me. … Many people in Davis, friends and folks I’ve been casually speaking with, tell me this happens to them, too.
3:30 today I was the 10th car stacked up on WB 5th street waiting at the light on G street. BOTH lanes were full to the tracks and there had not been a train recently. It took two light cycles for me to cross G street. One car in that stack turned left onto G street. Reducing the number of lanes is not feasible. Bicycles simply do not belong on 5th street.
Options that push vehicle traffic onto 3rd and 4th streets increase the hazards for bicyclists and pedestrians on those streets. If we cul-de-sac cross streets it will simply push traffic onto those smaller streets.
Hey “Don’t Get It”: Have you read the research on road diets? Studies from experiences in over 100 other cities large and small have demonstrated that the road diet reconfiguration improves traffic flow, by providing space for right and left turning vehicles to pull out of the way of through traffic. Did you go to council chambers in March to watch Burden’s presentation? Did you look at the power point posted by Greenwald on this site? If the answer is no, then you need to and then you will get it.
Well…
have [u]you[/u] read the research on road diets? If so, you would read that where they succeed (and they can) they were implemented where intersections were 1000 feet or more apart?… they were discontinued in several places that were cited by local proponents, when crashes/fatalities increased after implementation… do the proponents share this? or is it “irrevelant”? My personal opinion is go for it… and let the blood be on your hands…
“Also, MyView states: “downtown businesses be damned”? What planet are you from? Davis is nothing without downtown businesses…just another wide spot along I-80. Whyn’t you move to Fairfield, MyView, and stop cluttering up this blog with your narcissistic MyPrattle?”
Downtown businesses are often obstructionists for no good reason, and it can be counterproductive. Fifth Street is dangerous for everyone – the accident rate shows that. It needs to be made safer – and the road diet would be one way to do that. A safer Fifth Street is not going to decrease business to the downtown. Downtown businesses fought Borders, Target, anything that isn’t the status quo. I’m sick of it, and don’t shop downtown much for that reason. Their attitude stinks!
Borders, Target, those comprise is the corporate, identical-selection wherever-you-go-status-quo. Davis is getting less interesting as time goes by precisely because worshipers of the bottom line are proposing boondoggles like this Fifth Street nonsense and want to let ‘downtown business be damned’ because they don’t have a piece of it.
Let the bicyclists ride down Fourth Street or stay on the Fifth Street sidewalks. It was for them and the handicapped wheelchair riders that that the sidewalk ramps were put in. Talk about a need for educating: I saw a motorized wheelchair rolling down Fifth Street the other day.
Bicyclists and wheelchair riders need to understand that they are not in cars surrounded by a couple of tons of steel; they need to understand they are much more vulnerable and so need to be that much more vigilant about their own personal safety. And not expect government to be a substitute for their own personal responsibility.
“Borders, Target, those comprise is the corporate, identical-selection wherever-you-go-status-quo. Davis is getting less interesting as time goes by precisely because worshipers of the bottom line are proposing boondoggles like this Fifth Street nonsense and want to let ‘downtown business be damned’ because they don’t have a piece of it.”
How the heck is the road diet going to hurt the downtown?