Council Looks To Move Forward with Fifth Street Corridor Improvements –
For the first time, council this Tuesday will be presented with recommendations on how to do this. This will not be a slam dunk by any means, the business community has come out against the proposal even though if anything it would vastly improve traffic flow through the core and therefore the ability of the downtown customers to get to their destination. More on that shortly.
The staff report suggests that they will return to Council as the project becomes more refined, for now the first phase can be covered by the initial SACOG grant plus local match. “The SACOG grant and local match will cover most, but not all, of the “Minimum Amount to Conduct the Project.” At this time, staff anticipates a City share of $240,000 to cover the local match ($100,000), and the project cost exceeding the grant amount (for the initial phase).
According to the staff report,
“This project will create a “road diet” (lane reduction) on a strategic arterial through central Davis. The Fifth Street Corridor is a 4+ lane road between A and L Streets. Bike lanes and left turn lanes are not provided due to the limited roadway width. Reducing the travel lanes in this roadway segment will provide room, within the existing right of way,for Class II bicycle lanes, turn pockets, and medians on this corridor.
Existing raised median islands between A and C Streets will be modified to provide for pedestrian refuge. Painted medians with left turn pockets will be installed between C and G Streets. A double left turn lane will be installed between Gand L Streets to accommodate full access to the existing properties.
The traffic signal at A Street will be modified to include a bicycle-only phase, due to the high number of bicycles at this intersection. New eight-phase traffic signals will be installed at the intersections of F and G Streets, and the existing signals at B and L Streets will be modified to accommodate the new lane configuration. New access ramps will be installed at all corners throughout the Corridor with marked crosswalks to enhance pedestrian crossings. In addition, pedestrian crossing lights will be installed at the intersections of D and J Streets.”
At this time it appears there will be two phases, with the SACOG grant not covering or including “landscaped medians or pedestrian-scale lighting and would only include minimally improved cross walk striping. The ultimate build out would require additional local or grant funding.”
The initial phase does include however:
- One travel lane in each direction throughout the corridor.
- Left turn pockets between A and G Streets and two-way center turn lanes between G and L Streets.
- 7-8 foot bicycle lanes between A and L Streets.
- Bike lanes will also accommodate bus turnouts for Yolobus and Unitrans (a total of 4 bus stops currently exist throughout the corridor)
- New fully actuated eight-phase traffic signals at F and G Streets (protected left turns in all directions).
- Signal modifications at B and L intersections to accommodate the new lane configuration.
- Signal modification at A Street, including a bicycle signal phase (similar to the signal at Sycamore Lane and Russell Boulevard).
- ADA compliant ramps at all intersections between C and L Streets (2 ramps at each corner for a total of eight access ramps at each intersection). There will also be marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections, but perhaps not on every leg.
- Pedestrian crossing lights at the intersections of D and J Streets.
- Widening the existing raised median at C Street to improve pedestrian safety.
- Access improvements at the Fire Station near E Street.
- Extending new concrete sidewalks across the railroad crossing on both sides. Installation of raised median islands at the railroad crossing, as required by the PUC and California Northern Railroad.
- Medians and turn pockets will be in paint during the initial phase for cost saving purposes.
The staff report also suggested that the improvements will come with some constraints as compared to the current movements. There would be the elimination of left turns into and out of existing driveways on Fifth Street. While that would be a bit of burden to current residents, it is also a factor that is a current safety hazard. They would also prohibit U-turns at the signalized intersections throughout the corridor.
Furthermore, while the buses will pull out in the bike lane at the bus stops, the bike lanes are not wide enough to accommodate the full bus, meaning the bus will protrude occasionally into the travel lane. Furthermore at the railroad crossing, buses are required to stop to ensure no train is coming and that will cause some small delays.
During peak hours, left turning vehicles may extend beyond the left turn pockets and block and cause delays in traffic. Finally pedestrian flashers at the intersections of D and J Street could delay traffic when activated. Although as it stands now, running pedestrians trying to get across the street are a great problem.
As mentioned at the onset, the plan is not without its detractors. Jim Kidd had several letters included in the council packet in addition to an op-ed in the Davis Enterprise.
Mr. Kidd writes:
“The city of Davis’ final report on proposed changes to the Fifth Street corridor states, ‘… the average delay for the side street is increased by 34.71 percent because of the diet plan. – As a result, the vehicles turning from the side street can hardly find a gap to enter into the flow of traffic. This is a major negative side of the road diet plan that we could find in our simulation.’
I believe that part of the Fifth Street corridor should include mitigation for side street access. This is a potentially increased safety hazard noted in the report. As vehicles try to squeeze in from these side streets and compete for space with the continuing flow of traffic along the single lane of Fifth Street, no provision is made for their safety.
It does not seem reasonable to accept the potential for multiple traffic accidents occurring from these secondary streets when we have the opportunity to prevent this from happening.”
He goes on to suggest some options that might be used to mitigate the access problems some of which include limited access on the non-signalized road to Fifth stating “access to Fifth is only available at B, F, G and L streets.”
It is an interesting proposition, but Steve Tracy who helped develop the plan believes that it might not be necessary, at least according to comments he posted on the Vanguard last year following the release of the traffic model.
He explains, “this 34% increase in side street delay is a function of the type of model used. It is the right model for this circumstance, but it is intended to evaluate main line (5th Street) traffic, not side streets.”
He continues, “In the real world, those drivers suffering delays on the side street will experiment with other routes, and settle on those that are FASTER. This type of model does not allow that reassignment. “
He explains this more fully here, “There will not be an unusual amount of congestion on these six side streets, because those drivers will go to routes that work better, until equilibrium is reached. They will probably settle on streets with signals, that in the model have little backup. This is the difference between the fluid state of the real world, and the rigid state of the model that is used for corridor studies.”
The other point that Mr. Kidd does not acknowledge is that the side streets lack a large amount of traffic – in other words, there is a reason why D and E Streets, for example are unsignalized. Explains Mr. Tracy, “Of the six streets with no signals, if you count both northbound and southbound vehicles, only northbound E Street carries more than 100 cars (146) in the peak hour. And that number is less than 2 1/2 cars each minute, and then only for the peak evening rush hour. This is a situation that occurs for only five hours a week, only the 30 weeks when UCD is in full session. This is less than 2% of the hours in a year.”
The staff report goes on to note a meeting between Jim Kidd and Katherine Hess, Chief Planner, to discuss the city’s plans for Fifth Street. The meeting took place on February 23, 2010. One thing to note is Mr. Kidd and his family own 8 properties including seven of which are residential in that zone. The Davis Enterprise made no mention of the fact that he in fact had a conflict of interest here. If he were on the Davis City Council for example, he would have to recuse himself from making the decision. No mention of that by the Enterprise Op-Ed.
The one real problem I have with the city of Davis Staff report is that they do not highlight the location and severity of the accidents that have occurred on the corridor. This is an important piece of information that could frame the discussion. It is clear that some in the business community fear this, but I have to tell you, I try to avoid that corridor right now whenever I can, there are too many hazards.
If people are biking on Fifth Street that’s a problem. Here we just opened the Bicycling Hall of Fame on Saturday on 3rd and B. And yet up at 5th and B there is no bike lane on one of the major east-west arterials in the town. Pedestrians have a horrible time trying to cross. Anyone who tries to turn left off of fifth backs up traffic and then the other cars create a hazard by trying to whip around.
When you are making a left turn, often you try to jump the traffic and if you don’t wait for the last car to pass you might find a hidden additional car.
Finally, the traffic lights at F and G are horrible. Apparently they were put in to make turns safer and from statistics they have. The problem is that they are completely timed. As such, I have been there late at night or early in the morning, and stuck waiting for the lights to change with no traffic around.
We need to change this road and from what other cities have done this looks like a good approach. If it works, I think the business community will be very pleased and it will enhance business.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
1. “the DDBA has expressed concerns about using Redevelopment funds for the road diet – which makes no sense since the city is sitting on literally tens of millions in that fund that have gone unused. “
I think we would need a better overview of the current status of redevelopment funds, rather than glossing over this issue. I believe Redeveloment funds are involved in the DACHA issue. Probably they are included in funding plans for the downtown parking structure, which is a top downtown priority. I don’t think you’ve presented a true picture of the total cost of this project or of where the funding is going to come from.
2. “he in fact had a conflict of interest here.” He is a property owner along Fifth Street. It isn’t a conflict of interest. All property owners along Fifth Street are stakeholders in this process. It isn’t unreasonable for Jim Kidd or any other Fifth Street property owner to meet with city staff about this issue.
3. “There would be the elimination of left turns into and out of existing driveways…” Including Hibbert Lumber?
4. “”There will not be an unusual amount of congestion on these six side streets, because those drivers will go to routes that work better, until equilibrium is reached. They will probably settle on streets with signals….”
Unlike most of Steve Tracy’s arguments on this whole issue, I find this one unpersuasive. I think the city will need to plan for mitigation on side streets. It seems intuitive that this reduction in the flow on Fifth Street will result in adverse effects on the side streets, and that something will probably need to be done about that. “It might not be necessary” doesn’t seem like a very scientific answer, given that the whole foundation of the argument for the Fifth Street design is based on modeling data.
[quote]”I don’t think you’ve presented a true picture of the total cost of this project or of where the funding is going to come from.”[/quote]
You don’t think “I” have presented a full picture? In fairness to me, I pulled it from the information available in the staff report. To the extent that you are correct it is due to the fact that the staff report has not presented a full view.
[quote]”he in fact had a conflict of interest here.” He is a property owner along Fifth Street. It isn’t a conflict of interest. All property owners along Fifth Street are stakeholders in this process. It isn’t unreasonable for Jim Kidd or any other Fifth Street property owner to meet with city staff about this issue. [/quote]
I’m fine with that. The problem is that the newspaper should have pointed out his stake just as the city did.
You made this comment: “the city is sitting on literally tens of millions in that fund.”
I assume those funds are encumbered in some way. As far as I can tell, the RDA has an operating budget of $3.5 million. But you could well be right in your statement; I haven’t dug any deeper.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/ra/pdfs/RA Budget 09-10.pdf[/url]
The last time I talked to Navazio, I think he told me they had considerable money in the fund (Which is why they are always trying to find uses for it), maybe Sue will come on and break down how those funds can be used and over what period of time. But apparently almost all of the property taxes from South Davis goes into the RDA rather than the General Fund.
From the 2008-9 budget: “At June 30, 2009 the Redevelopment Agency fund balance held $13.1 million in unreserved, undesignated fund balance and $182,248 in restricted fund balance.” I have no idea what other constraints or possible uses might be under consideration for this money, whether there are any restrictions on using it for a project of this type, or whether there are other sources of funding.
I know this is going to be an expensive project, but if the RDA funding is available, this project needs to happen. Clearly, bike lanes are needed on 5th Street between A and G Streets – I don’t think anyone would disagree with that statement. I was a skeptic of the “road diet” concept at first, but after considering all the information available to the public, I am foursquare in favor of the “road diet” proposal. I’m sure some tweaking will have to occur over time to address problems as they arise. However, the main objective of providing bike paths on 5th St. near downtown is imperative from a safety point of view.
DAVID: [i]”… it would vastly improve traffic flow through the core and therefore the ability of the downtown customers to get to their destination.”[/i]
DON: [i]”It seems intuitive that this reduction in the flow on Fifth Street will result in adverse effects on the side streets, and that something will probably need to be done about that.”[/i]
Right now, in the evening rush hour (centered around 5 pm), traffic going northbound out of the downtown backs up (somewhat substantially) on E, F, and G for drivers trying to turn onto 5th or cross through. Other times during the day this also happens, but I don’t think it is as severe normally. So if there are back ups on those streets following the implementation of the diet, it will not be as if we have not seen them before.
The real risk, I suppose, is if it gets substantially worse, then you face the problem of clogging intersections on 4th and 3rd and essentially gridlocking much of downtown. (That actually happens on the other side of downtown, now, where the entire blocks on D and E Streets from 2nd to 1st are gridlocked as drivers try to pass through the Subway.)
Yet, if David is right — “it would vastly improve traffic flow through the core” — this back up problem on side streets should not get worse; and I would think, with improved flow, it should be eased. Time will tell. ….
On a related note, I think one street which is going to be heavily impacted by the changes on 5th Street is going to be 8th Street–during the construction, if not longer than that. When 5th was repaved last year, 8th Street became a parking lot from Sycamore to B Street. And while 8th is wide and has bike lanes and so on, it’s not really designed for heavy traffic. It is fronted by single family homes, where the residents will need a break in traffic to drive out to the street.
That said, if the road diet works as Mr. Tracy suggests, the long term impact on 8th should be neutral. That is, drivers who now take 5th won’t take 8th. I know, speaking for myself and presumably for others who live near me (in the Willett Elementary School area), that when I drive downtown, I take 8th and avoid 5th, now. Maybe if flow on 5th improves, I will choose to take 5th more often.
It has never been all that unsafe to drive on Fifth Street. I once spent time editing the Tragic Events page on Davis Wiki. I do not know of a single fatal traffic accident on Fifth Street since 1997, the year that the Davis Enterprise began to be archived online.
If Davis Wiki’s compilation of newspaper reports reflects the truth, then the most dangerous half mile in Davis ([url]http://tiny.cc/sy7wm[/url]) is not any part of 5th street, but rather the railroad tracks parallel to Olive Drive. Four people have died on that stretch of tracks since 1997. Nor is 5th Street the most dangerous street in Davis: Second Street, for example, is clearly more likely to have fatalities.
It is at best silly and at worst disingenuous for Davis to spend so much time and money on 5th Street in the name of traffic safety, when the real safety hazards are elsewhere. If we really care about city safety, we should fence the tracks along Olive Drive and create a safe way to cross those tracks.
[quote]I believe Redeveloment funds are involved in the DACHA issue[/quote] These are separate funds that are dedicated to affordable housing, and can be used for nothing else.
By placing an area in a redevelopment district, the state lets us retain (very roughly)about twice the property tax. Part of the deal is that a certain percentage is put aside to be used for affordable housing. This is the fund from which the city’s loansto DACHA came from.
Thanks, Sue.
Rich: ” I think one street which is going to be heavily impacted by the changes on 5th Street is going to be 8th Street–during the construction, if not longer than that.”
Yes, and the businesses that open directly on to Fifth Street, such as Hibbert Lumber and Dairy Queen, will be adversely affected during construction and possibly thereafter. All the property owners along Fifth Street have good reason to be concerned about the final layout of this project.
“The real risk, I suppose, is if it gets substantially worse, then you face the problem of clogging intersections on 4th and 3rd and essentially gridlocking much of downtown.”
The thing is, we’ve been told that the overall traffic flow will not be reduced on Fifth Street. But the side streets may have a 34% increase in traffic delay. In sum: the ability of drivers to egress the downtown, which is already difficult under the tracks on the South side, will become more difficult on the north side as well onto Fifth Street. This could result in more traffic shunting over to Second Street (which basically can’t be widened) to get out of town.
The only assurance we have that this won’t be a problem is Steve’s comment that the model isn’t applicable to this situation, and that drivers will change their behavior. I am sure he has access to other information about this, and I hope he will post it here. Generally traffic changes in one place cause other changes nearby. I hope that any final council approval will include side street monitoring and followup reports, and a budget for mitigation that may be necessary.
[quote]the DDBA has expressed concerns about using Redevelopment funds for the road diet – which makes no sense since the city is sitting on literally tens of millions in that fund that have gone unused — David Greenwald[/quote]The State allows us retain (very roughly) twice as much of our property tax increment from the Redevelopment Agency district in order to alleviate blight and promote economic development. Although there is much flexibility in how we use this money, I believe we should focus on economic development projects that will bring actual tax dollars in the future, in keeping with the intent by the state when they provided the large subsidy inherent to the Redevelopment Agency.
(The tax increment is the property tax that results from the increase in property tax revenues the property taxes over the baseline year when the Redevelopment Agency is formed. This includes extra property tax revenue from both the automatic Prop. 13 upward adjustments, additional taxes for new baseline upon resale, and property taxes from new development).
To imply that we are “sitting on literally tens of millions in that fund that have gone unused” implies that we are not working on plans to put this money to the use that it was intended, which should, IMO, be primarily to fund projects that will bring additional revenue to the city in the future on a permanent basis.
We are working on two such projects, and they will be very expensive. One is some form of additional parking for downtown, and the other is a joint venture to build or enlarge a hotel-conference center. A few years ago, we were exploring such a hotel- conference center concept with Hallmark Inn. We are also looking at other similar potential joint ventures. No single project would bring more direct and indirect revenue to the city.
I have been disturbed at the way our scarce Redevelopment Agency funds have been slowly shifted to the general fund. I opposed funding our downtown policeman position out of the Redevelopment Agency funds, and I opposed the purchase of the bicycle museum/hall of fame 3rd and B Street building because it also was a mechanism to shift Redevelopment Agency funds to the general fund.
If we can use the Redevelopment Agency funds for additional parking and for a private-public partnership to fund a hotel-conference center (as other cities do), it will eventually result in more revenue for the general fund. It is called “investing for the future”.
That said, I am not opposed to spending a small amount of Redevelopment Agency funds on improvements to 5th Street, but I am very disturbed by the attitude that we are merely “is sitting on literally tens of millions in that fund that have gone unused”.
Let me try to fix up this paragraph for you:
(The tax increment is the property tax that results from the increase in property tax revenues over the baseline year, i.e., the year in which the Redevelopment Agency is formed. This includes the increased property tax revenue from both the automatic Prop. 13 upward adjustments, additional taxes over the baseline upon resale, and property taxes from new development).
Here’s an interesting local blog that shows the locations of bike and auto accidents in a graphic format:
http://vort.org/media/data/crashes.html
You can see that the side streets also have problems.
Actually, Fifth Street doesn’t look any worse than most other streets from a safety standpoint. It is a river of steel that nobody on foot likes to cross. I’m like many people that drive downtown to do errands, etc., and if it gets to be a bigger pain because Fifth is one lane each direction, I’ll adjust. Getting people (like me) out of their cars is good. Why, I was on foot just the other day while I was getting my car smogged at EZ-Smog. I walked down the street a ways and made an unplanned purchase of a rose bush from Don Shor. That’s what foot traffic is all about. This is a cost effective project at $2M out of “tens of millions” available and I look forward to a more serene downtown walking/biking/driving experience.