The studies show that the road capacity will be the same. What will be different is there will be more traffic flow and less traffic stopping. Pedestrians and bicyclists both of whom could be huge partakers in the downtown will have greater access to the downtown under a redesign. Statistics show that the corridor presently is the most dangerous stretch of road in Davis–creating a safer road will benefit downtown.
The model shows a slightly slower eastbound trip during the peak hours–a matter of about seven seconds.
“An eastbound trip during the peak hour is slightly slower–it’s a matter of a few seconds. Average travel time for through vehicles is 144 seconds with the existing street and 151 for the other one. So it’s seven seconds slower in a two-and-a-half minute trip.”
However, that slight difference is more than made up by the vast difference in the westbound traffic flow which is about one minute quicker with the two-lane street with turn pockets. So, overall the average travel time through the corridor is a full 20 to 25 seconds faster.
The other key is the numbers of starts and stops is greatly reduced.
However that is not the only concern, the other concern expressed is side street congestion–downtown businesses in the Enterprise article expressed concern that the model showed greater congestion in the side streets.
This is at most a minor problem. Only about 7 percent of all of the vehicles end up at C, D, E, I, J, and K Streets–the unsignalized intersections in the model. And as Steve Tracy points out, that is in a “fixed model” where they have to go a certain direction and are unable to seek out better routes. In the real world, many of these drivers will go to where the signals are, which will allow them faster travel onto or across Fifth Street. Thus the delays that are shown in the model will go down in the real world.
Moreover, of these six streets with no signals, only northbound E Street carries more than 100 cars during the peak hour. That number (146) represents less than 2.5 cars per minute and that occurs only at the peak evening hour.
The peak hour itself occurs only five hours per week and only during the 30 weeks when UC Davis is in full session. That means that the worst-case scenario is playing our less than 2% of the hours in a year.
I have taken time to rehash a bit of this discussion to illustrate the point that while the models indeed show a possible increase in the congestion on the side streets–it will be a minor increase that will be corrected by drivers finding their way toward F, G, and B Streets where there are signals and it will only really occur during the peak hour. The rest of the time, the street traffic should flow far better.
I do not think you will find many people who are more pro-downtown than myself. I grew up in a town that was downtown-centered, and Davis’ downtown is one of the best aspects of the town. But for me, it is simply not pleasant driving toward the downtown on Fifth Street which is the most logical way I would get to the downtown from West Davis.
During Dan Burden’s presentation back in March, he showed pictorial evidence of what has happened in numerous streets and towns where road diets have been implemented. It ends up being not just a minor positive for business but an actual boon. It has transformed whole stretches of busy streets that are basically commuter thoroughfares into streets that are friendly to business.
Image the shops on Fifth Street between F and G having easier vehicle access from Fifth. That would seem to be a huge positive for the downtown.
Image that people can bicycle down Fifth Street to go shop in the downtown. Image they can more easily and safely walk from Old North Davis or Old East Davis into the Downtown.
I understand that Jennifer Anderson as owner of Davis Ace Hardware and co-president of the DDBA is skeptical about the benefits of the redesign and believes the plan will result in more rather than less traffic problems and they will end up discouraging people from shopping downtown. But I hope she hears me and countless others who tell her that the current set up discourages them from shopping the downtown. And that making Fifth Street more accessible would actually help it.
There clearly needs to be a community education program because there is no one whose intention is to harm or negatively impact the downtown.
Take a look at Mr. Burden’s presentation from March yourself if you have not seen it yet–it shows how the landscape is transformed and businesses flourish due to the changes.
(click on at the top right to view in full page view)
To me and many others this remains a safety issue first and foremost. Every day I travel on this stretch, I invariably see a near miss. The stretch of road between B and L Street contains more than 15 percent of all vehicle accident and 24 percent of all pedestrian and bike accidents since January 1, 2009. We are fortunate that no one has been killed on this stretch, but we are really playing with fire here.
As Steve Tracy wrote in a special commentary on the Vanguard in May:
“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.”
Furthermore:
“Because the cross streets come at frequent intervals (every 320 feet) and 5th Street provides access to densely populated residential neighborhoods and our thriving downtown, drivers make a lot of left turns off of 5th. As they sit at the intersection waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, they completely block traffic flow in the left lane.
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.”
Steve Tracy said that there have been no fatalities on this stretch, but it seems likely that with over 30 accidents a year, many involving non-motor vehicles, and with the speed of the vehicles on this stretch, that a fatality will unfortunately occur.
He said during the interview that at 25 MPH, a pedestrian hit by a car has roughly a 20% chance of being killed. When the speed goes up to 35 MPH, they have just a 20% of surviving and if they do survive their life is forever altered. He said that 10 MPH is a critical threshold and that the average speed right now on Fifth Street through that corridor is 35 MPH.
This will no doubt sound more flippant than intended, but I cannot really imagine a scenario that is worse for business than someone getting killed on this stretch. Nevertheless, I think there is an opportunity for the community at large and the business community to come together on this issue, to dispel the fears of downtown so that we can move forward on this. No one wants to harm downtown business, we all just want a better and safer way to go to the downtown to do our shopping.
In August, I interviewed Steve Tracy on Vanguard Radio. You can listen to my one hour interview with Steve Tracy by clicking here.
You can sign the petition in support of the Fifth Street Redesign by clicking here.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’ve signed the petition to implement this road diet. I encourage everyone to do the same. Citizens need to speak out in favor of this concept, strongly, loudly, and forcefully. It is a safety issue, first and foremost. The town revolves around UCD and its students. I want those students as safe as possible – three of my children graduated from UCD, and all rode bikes to the university. Too often I see bicyclists stuggling to ride on fifth street, and many do so in an unsafe manner. I as a motorist do not ever want to be put in the position of having injured or killed a bicyclist or pedestrian, bc the city was too short-sighted to implement a plan that would have installed bicycle lanes on Fifth Street.
I honestly am baffled by some downtown businesses who are resisting this effort. It is causing ill will towards downtown business, not the sort of thing a business should want to generate. Thus I would encourage as many business owners as possible to sign the petition to institute a road diet as well, FOR THE SAFETY OF CUSTOMERS. That would go a long way to remove the perception that downtown business does not care about the safety of Davis citizens that seems to be developing.
I’ve been a volunteer in the effort to get City Council, for reasons of safety and efficient traffic flow, to reconfigure 5th Street for several years now. In all that time, Chamber and DDBA have opposed the plans our group has put forward (a rumor circulates that most of the members have never studied the plan). Over time, the reasons for their opposition have been overturned, leaving only their personal disbelief. Denying the public record and the statistics produced, denying the success of other communities who calmed a chaotic street with redesigns similar to the one we propose, is all that’s left of the opposition.
Upgrading 5th Street is more urgent now as we begin another school year. More bicyclists and pedestrians will be getting around on the street, the number of cars in town will increase and so will the number of young drivers. On the 5th St. corridor January through July 2009, 28 accidents were reported with 19 injuries (seven bikes, four pedestrians). January through December 2008 there were 30 accidents with 19 injuries (six bikes, two pedestrians all injured). Clearly, 2009 will be a very bad year.
With the Bicycle Museum perched on 3rd and B and Davis displaying its platinum bicycle award, it is time for our business owners to cooperate with the community in this effort. Most Farmers Market customers eagerly sign the petition that’s circulating to ask City Council to direct City Staff to fix 5th Street. The neighborhood organizations that border the A through L Streets support the upgrade. Our petition signatures reflect widespread support in outlying neighborhoods of Davis and from folks who visit and shop on the weekends.
Please, in the intervening week, 1) familiarize yourself with the plan for street reconfiguration http://www.oldnorthdavis.net/FifthStreetAnswer/fifth_st_ans.htm 2) sign our on-line petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/5thstreet/ and 3) attend the September 8 City Council Meeting http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/agenda.cfm?c=18 at 7P in Chambers to ask City Staff to fix 5th Street.
Although Sunday’s Enterprise article was “well balanced”, what was striking to me was the difference in the character of the arguments for and against. The arguments reported for the road diet were largely science and data based (e.g. the actual City accident data and the voluminous data evaluating the effectiveness of similar road redesigns already completed). To the contrary, the arguments reported from the DDBA against the redesign were mostly anecdotal: “Gatewood said she hasn’t noticed any more accidents” (while the City accident data shows there has in fact been an increase), and Jennifer Anderson “believes the plan likely will result in more traffic problems” (while the UCD Civil Engineering traffic study and past data show that the average travel times will be shorter and accidents have decreased on the average, respectively). Personal beliefs and lack of notice cannot be a basis for sound public policy.
This is not to say that the fears of some members of the DDBA are not real. They are real in the sense that they are actually held, but they aren’t grounded in reality.
While I am [i]in favor of giving the road diet a try[/i], and believe that the reconfiguration suggested by its advocates [i]will improve traffic flow and will improve safety[/i], I think there are a couple of decent reasons to wait a while longer (maybe one more year) before it is implemented:
1. Cost. The City of Davis is broke. Unless there is a federal grant of some sort I am unaware of to pay for it now, I think it might be wise to wait until the City’s coffers are not so empty;
2. Target. Even though I believe Target will have no impact or minimal impact on most downtown businesses, it will have some impact on some businesses, and a very serious impact on a few (like Davis Ace). In that Target is just about to open, it does not seem smart to me to reconfigure 5th before the traffic impacts of the Target opening are well known (as they will be in say one year).
The city already missed a deadline for federal stimulus funds to help pay for this. Now there is a deadline for SACOG funds that expires next Thursday. If the city does not implement this now, they lose that too. Now is the time to take action on this.
This is rediculous. The city has been haggling over this for years. Fixing 5th has actually been in our General Plan since the mid 90’s, so what is being asked now is simply an implementation of the plan in the General Plan.
Target is definitely going to have an impact on Davis Ace. No question. It has been known since a Target was suggested in the Gateway plan that a Target would be a big impact on (then) Davis Lumber. Waiting to fix a street that has been an impediment to travel to our downtown for years is going to further harm the downtown. Right now, people shun 5th because of the problems. If it is easier to get to Target, that is where they will go.
We need to fix 5th now.
[quote]Waiting to fix a street that has been an impediment to travel to our downtown for years is going to further harm the downtown. [/quote]While I essentially agree with you — and believe now is the time [i]if we can get outside funding now, but not later[/i] — I think you have to consider that if some downtown retailers suffer a loss of business in the next 12 months (due to Target), they will cast some of the blame on the 5th Street reconfiguration, and call for its reversal a year hence. That can be avoided easily by not reconfiguring 5th at the very same time Target opens (which happens to also coincide with a deep recession and budget cuts at UC Davis).
I was also bewildered by the comments regarding accidents at Fifth and B in the Enterprise article. The fact is that accident numbers have dropped over the past few years all over Davis EXCEPT on Fifth Street. These are the totals, year by year. These figures exclude accidents reported in parking lots, alleys, roads outside the city, etc. The signal timing at the F and G Street intersections was changed in early February of 2005.
YEAR…..CITYWIDE…5th ST
2004……541……..81
2005……504……..42
2006……276……..38
2007……346……..35
2008……348……..30
2009.7mos.212……..30
So you can see that accidents on Fifth Street have held steady or risen in numbers, compared to a generally declining accident toll citywide.
More curious, 3 of the first 7 accidents on 5th Street in the current year happened at the allegedly “normal” intersection of 5th and B Streets. Worse, 2 of the 4 pedestrians hit by cars in the corridor the first 7 months of this year were hit at B Street. Both of these pedestrian hits happened in the daytime to people crossing legally in the crosswalk. Yet this seems to have escaped the notice of these nearby residents.
Rich;
The City has applied for SACOG funding. This external funding (no cost to the City) cannot be awarded unless the City has formally adopted the plan to complete the project. This is one reason it needs to be done now.
Another is that the Fifth Street redesign should be considered an amelioration measure for Target. If the traffic concerns are as bad downtown as in getting to Target, why would a shopper choose to come downtown when they can buy the same item cheaper at Target for the same (terrible) traffic hassle? If we calm our downtown traffic, the downtown will shine compared to Target’s vapid parking lot and more people will want to shop downtown.
“YEAR…..CITYWIDE…5th ST
2004……541……..81
2005……504……..42
2006……276……..38
2007……346……..35
2008……348……..30
2009.7mos.212……..30″
Wow … what happened citywide between 2005 and 2006?
I have no idea, Don. I am limited to the data I receive, which is the Police Dept reports fed to me by Public Works. Also, that is one year where the data set came to me in two pieces, which I had to try to merge. Maybe I should go back and request that whole year in a single spreadsheet. But whatever happened to the Citywide accident count, it was another troubling year on 5th Street. Steve.
What can I say, since J. Anderson and Maria O. took over the DDBA several years ago and fired the full time director?
These are the same people who basically supported/allowed Target Shopping Center to come into town. Idiots. And they worry that changes to Fifth Street might put them at a further competitive disadvantage to Target? The store that they basically put into place?
Now they oppose making Fifth Street safer for pedestrians and bikes, to protect DDBA business interests?
DDBA Idiots: “These are the same people who basically supported/allowed Target Shopping Center to come into town. Idiots.”
DDBA was officially neutral on Target. We would have preferred a position opposing it, and we would have preferred that they set the record straight when various news outlets reported that downtown merchants “weren’t opposed” etc. But the DDBA board at the time took an officially neutral position.
Jennifer Anderson actively opposed the Target initiative, spending thousands of dollars out of her own pocket to run ads in the Enterprise.
“The store that they basically put into place?” Get your fact straight, anonymous poster, before you criticize people and organizations.
While I essentially agree with you — and believe now is the time if we can get outside funding now, but not later — I think you have to consider that if some downtown retailers suffer a loss of business in the next 12 months (due to Target), they will cast some of the blame on the 5th Street reconfiguration, and call for its reversal a year hence. That can be avoided easily by not reconfiguring 5th at the very same time Target opens (which happens to also coincide with a deep recession and budget cuts at UC Davis).
Can somebody help me understand where downtown I might shop to puchase the type of products sold by target? Davis Ace Hardware might be an example. The Paint Chip? Where else?
Bookstores, clothing stores, electronic stores, furniture stores, and so on.
Hi Jeff,
The DDBA has a directory of the downtown businesses:[url]http://www.davisdowntown.com/directory[/url]
The Davis Chamber of Commerce has a member directory, though a lot of retailers aren’t members: [url]http://www.davischamber.com/[/url]
Davis Wiki is a very useful resource: [url]http://daviswiki.org/[/url]
There are actually very few items that Target will carry that you can’t find elsewhere in Davis, one way or another. A couple that were mentioned to me during the public presentations I did about Target included inexpensive kids’ clothing, and consumer electronics (Radio Shack notwithstanding…).
Davis has, in addition to the downtown core, 7 – 8 neighborhood shopping centers. There are also clusters of businesses that aren’t anchored by grocery stores. Olive Drive has an amazing number of little businesses. There are several of us on the eastern part of Fifth Street and on L street (we’re not officially in the downtown, and aren’t in the DDBA fee assessment district aka BID). There are a lot of service businesses along Second Street.
A basic principle of the general plan had been to strengthen those neighborhood shopping centers by limiting store size and discouraging major peripheral development. Even when category-killer chain stores came along, they were held to the maximum store size. This helps to level the playing field for smaller locally-owned businesses. Unfortunately, Target is a major break from that policy.
[quote] Can somebody help me understand where downtown I might shop to puchase the type of products sold by Target? [/quote] I think the only really big loser in the downtown is going to be the home store of Davis Ace. Other, smaller retailers who benefit from traffic generated by Davis Ace may lose business, as well. However, when I see lists of downtown “bike stores” and “book stores” losing business to Target, I have to wonder if those making that claim are actual customers of B&L (where I regularly have my bikes repaired) or The Wheelworks, etc., or if they ever go into a destination bookstore like Border’s?
Target (I am told) sells cheap bikes. Fine. I don’t think they sell the quality bikes and parts you can buy at Ken’s or Freewheeler, etc. And they don’t sell the very expensive bike accessories those stores sell. And they don’t repair bikes or have staffs filled with bicycling experts who know what they’re talking about and are crucial to customers interested in buying a bike or upgrading equipment. Certainly some people in Davis will buy a low-end bike at Target. Those customers would have, had Target not come to Davis, bought that bike at Wal-Mart in Dixon or Target in Woodland or maybe ordered it on-line. Their interest was in price, not service or quality.
When it comes to books, it’s apples and oranges. Book sales are very, very competitive right now. Independent, brick-and-mortar booksellers are getting killed (especially if their stores are not attractions in and of themselves). The slaughter is from stores like Wal-Mart and Target, which carry mass market paperbacks and some other junk; real bookstores are getting killed by Amazon and other e-tailers who have every book possible available at low prices*. Yet stores like our Border’s at Davis Commons is thriving, because it’s a destination store. It not only has at least 1,00 times as many magazine plus book titles as Target carries, but it’s a much more attractive place to browse, to buy a coffee or a pastry, to relax, to see friends, to take kids, etc. If you are a reader looking for the lastest “James Patterson” dreck to read on a plane flight, then stop at Target and they’ll likely carry that sh*t. But most readers I know in Davis like a bookstore that offers more than mass market paperbacks. That’s why Border’s will continue to suceed downtown.
*An additional factor harming booksellers in the widespread decline in literacy. More and more people under 30 don’t read anything. They largely don’t read novels, newspapers or magazines, compared with earlier generations.
Correction: [i]The slaughter is [u]not[/u] from stores like Wal-Mart and Target…[/i]
“Those customers would have, had Target not come to Davis, bought that bike at Wal-Mart in Dixon or Target in Woodland…”
Or maybe they would go downtown and buy the most economical bike at the local bike store. The local bike stores have products at all range of prices.
Rich, you have no idea how a particular retailer’s income is distributed across their product line. A dress shop may take in a significant percentage of income from accessories and impulse items. Bike stores that carry high-end bikes also carry inexpensive bikes. Garden centers may make a high percentage of profit from non-plant items such as fertilizers and soil amendments.
When analysts tell us that we should plan for a 30% loss of revenues when a Big Box store opens, we have to figure out what part of our inventory is going to be affected. Those things in our product mix that the new store will directly compete with will be most affected. So we look to see where (or whether) we can make up the difference in other product lines, or adjust our markup, or do something else to lose less income.
The biggest concern with any peripheral Big Box development is the loss of overall traffic. That affects every store in the downtown and in every neighborhood shopping center. Look at Woodland. You’ve been here long enough to remember when Woodland had furniture stores, appliance stores, pharmacies, and more. First the County Fair Mall killed the downtown businesses. Now the peripheral Big Box developments are killing the County Fair Mall, and what remains of the downtown. The latter is to the point that there is a redevelopment plan for Woodland’s downtown. The lead developer, as I understand it, is Petrovich. Who also developed the peripheral Big Box sites. Go figure.
What happens is a short-term loss of those customers who are very price-conscious. Most analysts estimate that about 30% of the public is very concerned about price. Clearly, many of those people are leaving town right now to get perceived value elsewhere, but some are presently buying locally. Then there is a longer-term loss of business as new customers — currently “branded” on big-name stores such as WalMart, Target, Blockbuster, etc. — come to town and simply seek out the names they are familiar with. Loss of student business will probably be the most noticeable effect when Target opens.
Local businesses can try to draw those folks to the downtown and to neighborhood shopping centers. The recent 30 on Aug 30 campaign by the DDBA is a good example. But look at the advertising budget of the average Big Box store, and you’ll see what merchants are up against. Merchants have to develop unique marketing strategies on low budgets in the face of massive, slick advertising by the Big Box stores. It can be done, but increasing our ad budgets during a recession isn’t a very viable option for most of us at the moment.
Don, I don’t really mean to put you on the spot, so please don’t answer if you don’t wish. But as a downtown business merchant, are you in favor of the road diet?
I’m not a downtown merchant, and would be unaffected by the change. I have friends on both sides of this issue and see no advantage to taking a public position on it. It would seem disrespectful for me to debate something that could directly affect the livelihood of, say, the owners and employees of Hibbert Lumber. Their views matter more than mine on this issue.
I do agree that the safety issue on Fifth Street has become serious and needs to be addressed.
Don, thanks for your candid answer. I guess I just don’t understand the reasoning of the downtown businesses. I think they are more afraid of change than anything. Do you have any better insights into their reasons against this road diet? I just can’t wrap my mind around why downtown business would think this road diet would negatively effect downtown business. Anything that makes sense anyway.
Your discussions of how and why Target may negatively effect downtown make a lot of sense (I am for Target by the way, but do better understand the problem). But at times, the downtown businesses seem to be almost obstructionist, which can cause a decided backlash against them. I think they need to be a bit more careful what they oppose.