Daniel Boone, representing the Oeste Manor Neighborhood association cited in the staff report:
“It has been suggested that Anderson Road be modified, similar to Pole Line Road between Covell Boulevard and Fifth Street, to include bulb-outs and landscaped center medians. Although it would be ideal for any street to have landscaped medians and bulb-outs, there is currently no program nor financing programmed for such improvements. There may be grant funding opportunities in the future if this corridor improvement becomes a priority.”
He argued that this needed to become a priority. Anderson Road as a whole is not meeting the needs of the people who use the corridor. And while a corridor study and improvement may have costs, there is a good deal of grant money available for exactly such endeavors.
Around Cesar Chavez he called the city’s proposed fix for three ADA ramps and a curb to redirect bike traffic, “all well and good” but said “it’s underwhelming compared to the problems and what really needs to happen there.”
Instead he wants to work with the city for something more visionary at Anderson Road and Russell. He said while there is nothing wrong with the existing proposal, it does not go far enough. He recommended shifting the crosswalk from the north part of the intersection near the Chavez to the south part. That would avoid the problem of traffic making right turns off of Rutgers into the pedestrians and bicyclists using the crosswalk.
The other key recommendation he made was the midblock cross walk that would cross around the tennis courts. The current problem is that the block is so long, children and others are cutting across the busy treat. It would also change the location where parents are dropping their children off from their neighborhood to across the street from the tennis courts. One of the commissioners recognized that for a midblock crosswalk to the work, it would require additional traffic calming, but that is part and parcel to the proposal.
Susan Handy, a parent also spoke out. She said that it was unsafe and puts students at risk. The current fix does not solve the problems facing students. She said that the biggest drawback is that these reforms were create and proposed without the community involvement. She wants staff to work with the users of that space, the neighborhoods, and the community to develop a plan.
David de la Pena argued that this corridor will actually be used more in the future, as more traffic is funnel down Hutchinson Road from West Village and will travel up Anderson. Right now, he said the street reflects an attitude of patchwork fixes where the speed varies from 25 to 30 to 35 and then back down to 25. He argues that what public works is recommending is simply another band aid. While it is not a horrible band aid, he thinks the $5000 could be better spent engaging the community and finding a solution for the entire corridor. The solution proposed will not solve the more significant problems of this corridor and it might even exacerbate the problems and make things more confusing. Instead he argues for wholesale redesign of the street.
Ultimately the commission, whose time was unfortunately pressed by another meeting in the same facility, decided to take two actions. First, to ask the city to study the entire corridor for a redesign of the street. This will obviously take grant money to do, but talking to people in the know, there seems to be a notion that there is a lot of such grant money out there. The city simply needs to be aggressive in addressing it.
Second, they agreed to study moving the crosswalk to the south side of the street as the chart shows above, this would have the bikes ride through the intersection rather than the crosswalk and into the parking lot.
Commentary
The Vanguard spoke with the school district’s Chief Budget Officer Bruce Colby. The first part is that the district has no current fiscal capacity to take on more debt for capital projects because of the funding for Phase 1 of the stadium. This has become a side issue on the Vanguard and I posted his explanation of the need for the stadium funding.
But the other point is that even if the district did have facility money, there is not much they can do. The district is not going to move the faculty parking lot to the rear of the building because that would take playground space away from the children so that the faculty could park. The solutions have to come from the city and redesigning Anderson Road, which has problems beyond the presence of the school.
What was clear to me is that this issue needs to get into the hands of the city council and they need to direct staff here. The advisory commission could only do so much, the neighbors need to organize and make their case to council. That is how Fifth Street happened, that is how West Lake IGA eventually happened, and that is how this project will have to happen.
The fact is the city does not have a lot of resources, but from talking to several people after the meeting, there are a lot of grant opportunities. But that requires the city to be very aggressive in seeking grants for projects. That is all the more reason to get city council to direct staff to move forward quickly with a study and a redesign of Anderson Road.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good start, now everyone be careful and cross our fingers that the council acts expeditiously.
Here’s the link to last Wednesday’s Vanguard article, which might offer additional context to new readers of the issue:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3467:Parents-and-community-members-concerned-about-safety-around-cesar-chavez-elementary-school&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]
Mr. Colby’s/Greenwald’s comments concerning Mello-Roos and facilities construction are found in the later comments in Wednesday’s article.
DPD: “The Vanguard spoke with the school district’s Chief Budget Officer Bruce Colby. The first part is that the district has no current fiscal capacity to take on more debt for capital projects because of the funding for Phase 1 of the stadium. This has become a side issue on the Vanguard and I posted his explanation of the need for the stadium funding.”
Side issue or not, it is clear that funding the DHS Stadium has left no facilities money for other projects that may have been more important. But unfortunately the DHS Stadium is a done deal – but let’s hope it gives everyone pause to think more carefully when spending facilities money. I aso find it ironic that UCD spend inordinate amounts of money on a football stadium – then had to turn around and cut four athletic programs. I know, I know, different pots of money were used – the old shell game that allows expenditures on frills at the expense of basics…
DPD: “What was clear to me is that this issue needs to get into the hands of the city council and they need to direct staff here. The advisory commission could only do so much, the neighbors need to organize and make their case to council. That is how Fifth Street happened, that is how West Lake IGA eventually happened, and that is how this project will have to happen.”
The Commisssion (by that I assume you are talking about the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission) can very much have an effect on this issue. They are the ones that have come up with a number of positive traffic measures – such as the innovative traffic light system at the intersection of Russell and Sycamore. If the Commission studies the issues at Anderson carefully, they can perhaps come up with a number of ideas of their own in conjunction with those of the neighbors, and push the CC to act on whatever suggestions the neighbors and the Commission have collaborated on. I really don’t understand your position that the Commission can “only do so much”.
Leaving the City Council to decide the matter essentially throws the entire issue back into the hands of City Staff, who seem to be satisfied there are no safety problems of significance to warrant any huge fixes on Anderson. This is exactly the reponse citizens were given back twenty years ago, when the same problems were occurring. It makes much more sense for the neighbors to work with the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission to come up with what they think are the optimum solutions, then bring those forward to the City Council to push for the solutions they think will work best.
Or am I missing something here – is the Safety and Advisory Commission not receptive to the neighbors’ complaints? Is that what is going on here?
Depending on the traffic load it might be a good idea to block Rutgers (removable poles).
“The Commisssion (by that I assume you are talking about the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission) can very much have an effect on this issue.”
“Or am I missing something here – is the Safety and Advisory Commission not receptive to the neighbors’ complaints? Is that what is going on here? “
They were somewhat receptive. City staff appears to be slow playing it. And I would say, and this is my concern, that the commission was not going to be proactive enough to overcome staff resistance, and thus I believe there needs to be pressure from above. Maybe some of the others that attended can tell me their impression, but that was mine.
From today’s Enterprise:
“A local woman was injured Thursday morning after being struck by a car at Anderson Road and Hanover Drive, Davis police said.
Ka Kwan was walking westbound across Anderson Road and was struck by a southbound car at about 7:40 a.m., Sgt. Paul Doroshov said. She was taken by ambulance to the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento with unspecified injuries.
…
Doroshov said the driver apparently had pulled into another lane to pass a Unitrans bus when he struck Kwan, but it was unclear whether she was in a crosswalk at the time. Neither alcohol nor drugs were factors in the accident, he added. “
The 4 lane configuration at this point probably contributed to this accident.
Got the report on this yesterday, should have mentioned it in the story today, but here’s another example of the dangers, a bit north of the school, but car pulling around a bus (which is illegal) hit a pedestrian.
From the Enterprise:
[quote] Woman goes to hospital after being struck by car
Enterprise staff | | June 04, 2010 08:36
A local woman was injured Thursday morning after being struck by a car at Anderson Road and Hanover Drive, Davis police said.
Ka Kwan was walking westbound across Anderson Road and was struck by a southbound car at about 7:40 a.m., Sgt. Paul Doroshov said. She was taken by ambulance to the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento with unspecified injuries.
Reports were still incomplete Thursday evening, and neither Kwan’s age nor the name of the 34-year-old male driver were available.
Doroshov said the driver apparently had pulled into another lane to pass a Unitrans bus when he struck Kwan, but it was unclear whether she was in a crosswalk at the time. Neither alcohol nor drugs were factors in the accident, he added. [/quote]
Jinx Jrberg! That’s hilarious.
It’s very likely the case that “no one thought of it at the time,” but the right way (the 20/20 hindsight way) to have dealt with this problem on Anderson Road would have been to have charged the developers of Covell Park and later Northstar a “development impact fee” to remedy problems on Anderson Road.
When I was a child and Anderson Road terminated at Covell*, there was no traffic problem or special danger to school children on that stretch. But ever since Anderson was extended to the north and later east, the number of cars on it increased substantially. That, the conversion of WDE to a magnet school, and the increase in Unitrans buses have combined to create this problem.
Ideally, we could have drawn down the impact fees to modify the roadway to make it safer. But, alas, that money was not charged or set aside.
It’s worth thinking about this mistake now, so that when other new developments are approved, we will have funds available to improve our infrastructure when it no longer meets our needs due to the added traffic. Unfortunately, mindless “enviromentalists” have been abusing the developer impact fees for the last 20 years. So instead of having enough money to fix Anderson Road, we have millions of dollars to buy meaningless agricultural easements 5-20 miles away from Davis.
As to the money going to the stadium: I don’t recall anyone at school board meetings ever raising safety issues at CCE as a better use. If they did and were turned away, I think the anti-stadiumites might have a case.
*When Anderson Road ended at Covell, before the shopping center was built, that is where the Anderson’s nice house and ranch were. They had a very large horse barn right about where Save-Mart now is. My older brother and sister remember riding horses with the Anderson girls in the 1960s southwest, west and north of there.
DMG: “They were somewhat receptive. City staff appears to be slow playing it. And I would say, and this is my concern, that the commission was not going to be proactive enough to overcome staff resistance, and thus I believe there needs to be pressure from above. Maybe some of the others that attended can tell me their impression, but that was mine.”
If the commission seems somewhat tepid, then you are exactly right in urging the neighbors to go directly to the CC, and urge the CC to get city staff moving on this. However, I think the neighbors would be wise to wait until the two new CC members are voted in…
I agree. When the issue was first raised two weeks ago at the Joint Council-School Board meeting, Krovoza was one of the people there pushing for changes.
David, I beat you by one minute – GMTA, or something like that.
As to the illegality, I don’t think so. Passing yellow school buses when their flashers are on is definitely illegal. Passing a Unitrans bus in the number one lane while it is in the number two lane and slowing is not illegal, otherwise there would be a whole lot more backups in town.
What I heard on the police radio yesterday is that witnesses stated (I think) that the driver involved was doing around 40 mph, and pulled over quickly around the bus as it was approaching the stop in front of the church. Lots of people cross Anderson at that point from the apartments to get to the bus stop, and this may have been a person doing just that. The margin for error on that 4-lane stretch is very low – I hate turning left from Hanover after picking up food from Ding How, but there’s no other way to go without traveling well out of the way.
I would strongly support a reconfiguration of Anderson to improve safety for all road users. And speeding is very much a problem on Anderson, especially on the four lane section.
As to the money going to the stadium: I don’t recall anyone at school board meetings ever raising safety issues at CCE as a better use. If they did and were turned away, I think the anti-stadiumites might have a case.
I attended/watched school board meetings regularly during that interval, and I never saw it mentioned. Emerson upgrade was mentioned as a second priority. At the meeting in which the board committed the money to the project, ~13-14 people spoke during public comment, everyone for the stadium, not one for an alternative project. There was nothing to keep a person from bringing it up then, or in communication w/ district staff.
From my perspective, those who strongly felt that the money should have been spent on something else just didn’t have their eye on the ball.
[i]”As to the illegality, I don’t think so. … witnesses stated (I think) that the driver involved was doing around 40 mph …”[/i]
Passing the bus may be legal, there, because there are two northbound and two southbound lanes. But the posted speed limit is 30 on Anderson, not 40. I would imagine that if the driver was speeding and the woman was seriously hurt — and it sounds like she was in that “she was taken by ambulance to the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento” — the driver is apt to be charged with a criminal offense.
From my experience driving in Davis, the two worst habits drivers seem to have — habits which, I might add, are new in the last 10 years — are these:
[b]1.[/b] Passing on the right at an intersection. This is explicitly illegal, and it is very dangerous. I’ve witnessed one bad accident and a couple of minor ones as a result of this maneuver. What happens — I see this on B Street and 8th Street most often — is a car, say going east, is trying to turn left (north) on a green light, but is waiting for westbound traffic to pass. The car behind the guy waiting to turn drives around him on the right and goes straight (east). Yet if one of the westbound cars is turning south, he is going to collide with the driver illegally passing at that intersection. They won’t see each other before it’s too late. Also, the pass on the right involves driving into the bike lane. If the passer is in a minivan, truck or other big car, he likely won’t see the child on a small bike in the bike lane; and
[b]2.[/b] Incautiously passing Unitrans buses which have just pulled over on streets where there is only one lane going in each direction. Every driver should pass the bus with expectation that pedestrians are going to pop out to cross the street. Yet I very often (especially on Sycamore north of Covell) see drivers pass the buses without even reducing their speed. I have not seen an accident from this. But it’s an assinine maneuver.
Rich: Yes, I didn’t make it explicit enough, but if that driver were going 40 mph, that would be a violation that could possibly result in charges.
As to your point #1, the vehicle code says:
21754. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the
right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left
turn.
If you have information otherwise, please post it – this doesn’t sound like an explicit prohibition to me. And please note that I am not advocating for any position here – I’m just quoting the law. I’ve seen a number of the same kind of unsafe maneuvers that Rich has. That same section of the VC has a number of other interesting paragraphs, including that drivers slow to 10 mph when passing buses, which was new to me…
(c) Whenever any trolley coach or bus has stopped at a safety zone
to receive or discharge passengers, a vehicle may proceed past such
trolley coach or bus at a speed not greater than 10 miles per hour.
But, of course, this would depend on what the definition of “safety zone” is. Haven’t found that yet….
And for you mountain bikers out there, the VC says:
21759. The driver of any vehicle approaching any horse drawn
vehicle, any ridden animal, or any livestock shall exercise proper
control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear
necessary or as may be signalled or otherwise requested by any person
driving, riding or in charge of the animal or livestock in order to
avoid frightening and to safeguard the animal or livestock and to
insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in
charge of the livestock.
Sorry to get so far off topic, but reading the Vehicle Code is fascinating, and it’s interesting how much of it is not enforced.
[quote]21754. The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn. [/quote] jrberg, that is only the case when THERE IS A RIGHT AND A LEFT DRIVING LANE. What I am refering to is when there is one driving lane in each direction and the paved lane to the right of the driving lane is designated for bicycles only: [quote] 21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection. [/quote]
Rich, this is a really murky interpretation of the law. Within the intersection, there is no bike lane. I would prefer much more specific wording of the law, because I don’t think the section you’ve quoted gives clear direction on this issue.
I say this as a cyclist, not as someone promoting the rights of motorists. I would like the law to be very clear in all aspects, and I don’t think it is as written. I don’t see any reference in your quoted code to more than one lane. But if you have some case law examples, I’d be all ears, or keyboards, as the case may be.
I’ve been an almost victim of people doing what you have described, and I’d very much like a clear example of the law that I could use in that situation.
[quote][b]21755.[/b] The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right [u]only under conditions permitting such movement in safety.[/u] In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the paved or [u]main-traveled portion of the roadway.[/u][/quote] If a cop in Davis sees a driver pass on the right in an intersection in Davis where there is one lane auto traffic in each direction and a bicycle lane to the right of the car lane, he will cite the driver for violating 21209 (driving in a bicycle lane) and 21755 (passing another vehicle in unsafe conditions and driving off the main-traveled portion of the roadway).
Let me add this to my 10:10 post — It is always legally unsafe to pass on the right in an intersection where there is traffic coming from the opposite direction which legally can turn left (which is to your right) because the car you are passing inherently obstructs your view of oncoming traffic. And you know there is oncoming traffic because that is the reason the car in front of you has stopped, to wait for that traffic to pass before he turns left.
On the other hand, if you were at a T-intersection where you are continuing forward, the car in front of you is waiting for oncoming traffic to pass so he can turn left, and the oncoming cars cannot make a left turn (your right), you can safely and legally pass on the right, as long as you don’t drive in the bike lane.
[img]http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa09020/images/fig1.jpg[/img]