It was supposed to be a simple item that moved forward the Fifth Street Corridor Improvement project. Council simply recommended adoption of a negative declaration which would analyze the proposed project and determine that the potential impacts would be less than significant, with mitigation, while at the same time amending the Core Area Specific Plan for consistency with the Fifth Street Corridor Improvements Project. This would include an Implementation Measure to add bicycle lanes on Fifth Street/Russell Boulevard from A to L Streets.
The idea that this project would produce enough of a direct financial impact on Ms. Greenwald is almost ludicrous.
If the alarm was set off, it may have ironically have been set off by Steve Tracy, one of the strongest proponents of the road diet, who nevertheless also has concerns about the impacts on his neighborhood and the need for a neighborhood to receive help with traffic calming.
He argued that part of the problem is that the current bar for impacts is set too high, with the impacts needing to get worse before they are addressed. As he suggested, “We need some help with this impact right now.”
“There have been some 70 or 80 accidents away from Fifth Street in Old North Davis in the six years since the traffic signal timing changed on F and G Street,” he continued. “Many of these accidents happen on our quiet residential streets… in the interior of our neighborhood, injury accidents; those are what we are trying to get addressed right now.”
“We feel the bad behavior and the travel pattern of many people who are going around the signals is set in their travel habits and will stay there no matter what happens with Fifth Street nor how successful the redesign is and how [it would be] good for them if they were to bother to try it out. They will speed through our neighborhood, run stop signs, have accidents,” he said.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson was concerned about the impacts, especially to the south, expressing concern about “unknown changes” caused by people “diverting off” to the south.
She also expressed concern about the economic impacts of this project and the potential drain on general fund monies that could occur.
While Ms. Swanson recognized that there will always be uncertainty, she did express concern about some of the unknown impacts in this project. “I think in this economic environment, and even if we were flush with money, we need to be more prudent than that,” she said.
Katherine Hess provided a good explanation of the necessity of the project and why taking the project from four travel lanes down to two actually improves the flow through the corridor.
“Around the country people have done projects like this and have concluded that they smooth or didn’t harm the traffic flows,” she said.
Why does that work? A big part of it, Ms. Hess explained, is that the left turn lane pockets provide shelter and protection to those vehicles making a turn off of the street, “so that people turning left don’t block a travel lane, similarly people turning right can pull into the bicycle lane – assuming there’s no biker or bus there – and not block the traffic for those turning so that vehicles in that one lane are only vehicles, in that one lane, are vehicles going straight.”
This allows the one lane to flow through more smoothly as opposed to being blocked by left turns and right turns, and cars attempting to veer around those making turns.
“That also serves to provide a much safer corridor because you have more predictable behavior and you have drivers who stay in their lane and don’t move back and forth,” she added.
The other problem that Fifth Street suffers from is the presence of the signals at F and G. As Ms. Hess pointed out they are very old signals whose timing was changed in 2005 so that we have a three-phase cycle.
“That signal timing was done because those intersections had the worst accident record of any in town,” she said.
The collision rate has gone down dramatically because of the protected turns, she pointed out, but it comes with a huge cost as it is a third phase in the intersection “which causes delays, particularly for the Fifth Street Corridor. Even worse, the signals are not triggered by vehicles, they’re on timing, so it’s going to go through that same three phase even at 4 in the morning when nobody is there.”
Of course, the problem is not four in the morning, it is what happens during the peak hours, “when it might not be that somebody is wanting any one of those phases, [but] it still goes through the whole cycle.”
Shifting to a more standard signalization would improve travel time significantly.
“On average the travel speed through the corridor is going to go down, but the travel time through the corridor will also go down for the vast majority of the time and directions,” Mayor Joe Krovoza said. And that is what helps the city get the negative impact declaration.
However, Ms. Hess said, “The side streets will have difficulty, particularly during the rush hour, particularly for vehicles that have drivers that want to cross Fifth or make a left turn.”
Not pointed out in this analysis is the fact that drivers have these problems now, and most of them solve it by moving toward the signalized intersections if they need to make a left turn or cross Fifth.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson continued to express concerns about the economic times and reminded people, “If this goes through and there’s problems… our source of funding… is general funds.”
“I want to make sure that we’re all sober, realizing that we have no revenues coming our way any time soon,” she said.
She also raised the point multiple times that the point has been made that other communities have made traffic calming similar to the Fifth Street plan work for their community.
As she pointed out, in Davis, the traffic calming would be adjacent to the downtown in the core area.
“I’m really concerned about moving forward on suppositions that this has worked well in other communities if we’re not comparing some apples to apples,” she said.
As she would express later, she is really not comfortable with the lack of knowledge as to what those other communities are and what the specific conditions under which the road diet was constructed.
Later in the evening, Steve Tracy, while he suggested it was difficult to find examples to exactly match this situation, he did point out that a comparison to B Street would address this concern somewhat.
“If you want to know if it will work in Davis, B Street for most of its length, disregarding the parking, has exactly the design that’s going to be in the future on Fifth Street,” he said. “It carries almost exactly the same traffic loads -100 cars a day difference… They’re probably the same drivers, they’re certainly in the same town and two streets intersect.”
The blocks are about two-thirds of the length, on Fifth Street as on B Street, but “they’re pretty short blocks,” he added. “It’s the same street, it will work. It works here, B Street works.”
Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke said that there is some distinction between the impacts of this project and the more general policy concerns about how traffic should flow around various parts of town. He did, however, note that traffic-calming measures are relatively inexpensive, saying, “They are not individually expensive.”
Councilmember Souza would ask whether we expect general fund expenditures to address some of these impacts.
Again the issue comes down to what is an impact versus what is an existing problem.
As Katherine Hess would point out, “Using agency funds for existing problems in the neighborhood north of Fifth Street, which is not part of the project area, might be problematic.”
“If it’s directly tied to the Fifth Street core area project, then the mitigation measure that’s just a little bit outside would be an appropriate use for redevelopment funds if they are still [there],” she added.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson talked about unintended consequences, but noted that, as they discuss this, they are becoming a lot less unintended and a lot less “unforeseeable” and a little more “foreseeable.”
Councilmember Stephen Souza said, “I’ve gone from being a skeptic because of the counter-intuitiveness, to [being] an acceptor that it will solve the inherent problems that we have in this part of our roadway.”
The first problem is the number of bicyclists who use this roadway, putting themselves potentially at harm as well as others. The other problem is that, when someone seeks to turn left and the impatient driver darts around and gets slammed into, even after implementing the changes to the signals.
“Those are problems that I think will be solved by road diet,” he said.
“The part I am uncomfortable with and still uncomfortable with… is travel habits,” he said. “Travel habits of individuals seeking to avoid at peak hours and even non-peak hours, being slowed down any second at all,” he said.
“I see this a lot,” he said, and he pointed to examples of drivers cutting through parking lots to avoid signals.
Mr. Souza would later argue that “there is a 50-50 chance here – it’s either going to reduce traffic impacts on neighborhoods or its going to increase. Models say it will reduce, but behavior is something you can’t model entirely.”
Unfortunately, while Mr. Souza is trying to make the point about uncertainty in models and outcomes, the idea that the two possibilities are equally likely I think flies in the face of a lot of research. The council may not know what all of the outcome are, but this is not a complete roll of the dice either.
The meeting went on far too long.
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, in the end, abstained from the vote here. “I don’t want to vote no,” she said, “So I will do the ‘punt’ of abstain.”
“I think this can be a good idea,” she said, “But I want it to be successful.”
“I would like to have the priority funding,” she said, “We’re going hear all of your concerns but if you have some traffic calming issues, we don’t know if we’ll fund them or not. I don’t think it’s fair.”
She argued, “There is no grant funding in danger.”
The council would vote 3-0 (with Ms. Swanson again abstaining and Ms. Greenwald conflicted out) to support the staff recommendations in parts A and B. They did amend it to allow the city manager to spend an additional $10,000 to hire a consultant to consult with community members about impacts around the Fifth Street Corridor.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]He argued that part of the problem is that the current bar for impacts is set too high, with the impacts needing to get worse before they are addressed. As he suggested, “we need some help with this impact right now.”
“There have been some 70 or 80 accidents away from Fifth Street in Old North Davis in the six years since the traffic signal timing changed on F and G Street,” he continued. “Many of these accidents happen on our quiet residential streets… in the interior of our neighborhood, injury accidents; those are what we are trying to get addressed right now.”
“We feel the bad behavior and the travel pattern of many people who are going around the signals is set in their travel habits and will stay there no matter what happens with Fifth Street nor how successful the redesign is and how the good for them if they were to bother to try it out. They will speed through our neighborhood, run stop signs, have accidents,” he said.[/quote]
I will preface my comments with the observation that I think all who participated in the debate were well intentioned and trying to do what is in the best interests of the city/citizens. However, I think there was some faulty logic in the debate last night, to wit:
1) The fact that there are current problems with traffic on side streets off of 5th Street has absolutely nothing to do with the 5th Street Redesign. Those problems exist right now, BEFORE the Redesign has even been implemented. It is a separate issue and needs to be kept that way – SEPARATE.
2) It is impossible to anticipate all possible/probable impacts of the 5th Street Redesign BEFORE it is built. To some extent, there has to be a leap of faith. There are always risks inherent in any undertaking.
3) The anticipation from modeling studies and experiences of other communities is that the road diet model itself will actually be a traffic calming measure, and very likely will not cause any of the nightmare scenarios being posed as remote possibilities.
4) What is perceived as a traffic problem by some, may not rise to the level that the city needs to address the issue. Just because someone says there is a problem does not mean there IS a problem. It is merely a perceived problem, which can be looked at and addressed in the context of other perceived problems in other various parts of the city.
I believe it was Mayor Krovoza’s leadership last night that really got this project back on track. While I appreciate Council member Swanson’s and Steve Tracy’s concerns, at some point everyone has to take a deep breath and take the plunge, even if they cannot see every detail perfectly at the bottom of the pool. Because it appeared to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that the city was in some danger of losing the grant funding for this project if we did not act in a timely manner, which would have been a shame. I agree with Council member Souza when he said this Redesign is counterintuitive, so I do understand some of the hesitation. But at the end of the day, life is not perfect and never will be, and at times it is necessary to accept less than perfect for the greater good.
This is not a criticism of any who participated in the spirited debate. However, I see this type of scenario playing out at the national level – where proponents/opponents of a project keep “raising the bar” of expectations, so that mission creep sets in. And suddenly the project is either dumped through “paralysis by analysis” (which almost happened last night) or gets much more expensive (the 5th Street Redesign has now become $10,000 more expensive bc consultants will work with neighborhoods to address potential concerns on side streets).
I am very, very hopeful everyone is going to be extremely happy with the 5th Street Redesign, once it is completed. Will everything be perfect? Of course not! Will traffic be better? Most probably. Will there be impacts on side streets? I suspect they will be minimal, from an objective point of view.
[i]”However, I see this type of scenario playing out at the national level – where proponents/opponents of a project keep “raising the bar” of expectations, so that mission creep sets in. And suddenly the project is either dumped through “paralysis by analysis”[/i]
This is a problem as we gravitate toward more pure democracy.
In my large company project management days, we used to pre-identify the project “approach” we needed to take. Projects with many stakeholders, but with a specific urgency or deadline, we identified as needing the “dead body” approach. Stakeholders wanted their say and hated being ignored our left out of the planning and design of a project. However, the more people you include in the decision process, the more complicated the project becomes and it drives up the scheduling risk. The key is to optimize the list of participants so you don’t risk missing some critical contribution, but also don’t cause too much chatter and noise which can fire up the rumor mill and derail a project. We called it the “dead body” approach because we knew we would have to steamroll over people feeling they should have a say. We would use the authority of senior management to plan, design and implement the project with a smaller team comprised of only the very most critical stakeholders.
One interesting consequence of this was that project managers good at this approach usually had higher turn-over because the “kill the messenger” tendency of people pissed that they were left out impacting the PM’s career path. Conversely, the PMs of mine that were skilled at the more inclusive approach tended to be very popular and well-loved… but they would burn out since keeping so many people satisfied that they were included while keeping project momentum was exhausting.
Another interesting bit of data we captured and reported… the inclusive-approach projects had no fewer mistakes/defects than the dead-body approach projects. We learned that the key was to grow excellence in our stakeholder identification for optimizing who should participate in the decision process. Too many people involved created analysis-paralysis and the project requirements would grow so large and complex that we would often corrupt the original goals the project was meant to achieve.
Thinking about this at the national level, George Bush took the “dead body” (no pun intended) approach to the Iraq war. The Bush Administration determined the urgency, told other countries “you are either with us or against us” and pissed off much of the world that thought they should have a say. It was demonstrated leadership to try and do the right thing despite the personal consequences to his popularity. Obama also took a dead-body approach (again, no pun intended) for his health care bill. He too was trying to do the right thing from his perspective. Like Bush, he is being relentlessly attacked for it by those left out. The main difference I cite for these two leaders is that Obama promised to be a more inclusive chief executive, Bush was clear up front that he was “the decider”.
At the local level, we have what I would call a dysfunctional entitlement mentality related to our city politics. Davis voters think they should have a say in every political decision. They gum up the works of government decision-making. They make progress painful, costly, slow and exhausting. I applaud leaders that take the dead-body approach from time to time… especially given the tendency for many Davisites to be critical of everything.
Jeff, interesting commentary and perspective…
Elaine: Thanks. You too. In fact it was your great observation that churned my brain cells on this. So, everyone has to blame you for having to endure my preaching! 😉
Elaine. With all respect, the problems that are in Old North Davis ARE a part of the 5th Street project. In the view of our neighborhood association, this has been a single continuous effort from nearly ten years ago when we began to ask for safety improvements on a very dangerous 5th Street. Yes, the solution implemented in February of 2005 did reduce many of the unprotected left turn accidents caused at the F and G Street intersections. But reconfiguring the signals at F and G only addressed one type of accident, only at those two intersections, and causes over half a minute of travel time delay for drivers going through the corridor (as had been predicted by the model exercise the City commissioned). Simply put, if you get caught by a red light you sit through the green lights for TWO other streams of traffic, not just one.
Those delays caused many drivers to look for routes that would avoid the signals at F and G Street. Unfortunately, the impatient drivers who use this approach are more likely to take chances while turning, speed down residential streets, and fail to properly obey stop signs. This combination of shifting travel patterns and impatience increased accidents at some other locations on and near the 5th Street corridor, a predictable outcome. Many of these accidents are due to unprotected turns made at 5th Street intersections that do not have traffic signals, and many are caused by drivers who run stop signs in the Old East and Old North Davis neighborhoods.
Even after 5th Street is reconfigured, many of the drivers who currently cut through the neighborhoods will remain on those routes that have become part of their commute patterns through habit. I doubt if cut-through traffic will increase, which is the bar that had been set before any traffic calming measures would be considered. But much of the problem that remains will still be the result of drivers coming from or going to the 5th Street corridor who are not behaving.
Neighborhood traffic calming was done before the reconfiguration in California’s best high-volume road diet example. La Jolla Boulevard through the Bird Rock community in the City of San Diego carries around 22,000 vehicles a day, nearly 50% more than 5th Street. It is the only direct surface street route into La Jolla from the beach communities to the south, and has heavy volumes of delivery trucks and large articulated buses. The project reduces the through lanes from 4 to 4, in places removed turning lanes, and removed traffic signals and stop signs at five intersections in sequence. Now five well-designed roundabouts regulate a smooth and slower flow of traffic. Primarily, the extra space the lane reduction provided in the street was converted to parking and wider sidewalks.
Detours during construction were going to be necessary (a new sewer main was also part of this project) and concerns were raised about spillover traffic afterwards. So City engineers addressed traffic calming in the adjacent neighborhoods before anything was changed on the primary street. This involved re-striping for narrower lanes, mini-circles at some intersections, and other treatments.
We didn’t see any of this in the adjacent neighborhoods in Davis, but thanks to the foresight of the City Council and our staff we will at least get some preliminary design and cost estimates for a minimal amount of addition funding while one of the best firms in the country is in town doing the details on 5th Street.
That was a sound decision that addresses documented hazards, and is directly related to the overall efforts to improve safety on 5th Street.
Public Works staff has tried to kill this project since 2000. Steve Tracy has almost single-handedly gotten it this far. Last night’s meeting was nothing new.
What does this simple little project have in common with the huge surface water project? Public Works Dept.
Something has to change over there. Steve?
[quote]Elaine. With all respect, the problems that are in Old North Davis ARE a part of the 5th Street project. In the view of our neighborhood association, this has been a single continuous effort from nearly ten years ago when we began to ask for safety improvements on a very dangerous 5th Street. Yes, the solution implemented in February of 2005 did reduce many of the unprotected left turn accidents caused at the F and G Street intersections. But reconfiguring the signals at F and G only addressed one type of accident, only at those two intersections, and causes over half a minute of travel time delay for drivers going through the corridor (as had been predicted by the model exercise the City commissioned). Simply put, if you get caught by a red light you sit through the green lights for TWO other streams of traffic, not just one. [/quote]
You will have to be patient with me, or we may have to agree to disagree on this issue. If the actual project under contemplation to be built for the 5th Street Redesign/Road Diet has not occurred yet, then the problems you are talking about already exist. The current 5th Street Redesign under comtemplation may or may not exacerbate those current problems once built. If they do not appreciably effect the current problems, then I don’t see the connection…
Oops. La Jolla Boulevard went from 4 to 2 lanes, not 4 to 4. Thanks Russel R for catching that. Steve.
Public Works has tried to kill AIDS rsearch since 2000.
What does AIDS have in common with the huge surface water project? Public Works Dept. Mike?
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
[quote]Those delays caused many drivers to look for routes that would avoid the signals at F and G Street. Unfortunately, the impatient drivers who use this approach are more likely to take chances while turning, speed down residential streets, and fail to properly obey stop signs[/quote]a/facts to support this? Please provide. The Enterprise referred to you as a Transportation Planner. What are your credentials? Was the approval of a Transportation Planner job description by the CC last night meant to have you come onto city staff to set the evil Public Works department right?
Bad post on my part… the first part should have read, Does Mr Tracy have data//facts…
[quote]Public Works has tried to kill AIDS rsearch since 2000. [/quote]You forgot to mention their complicity in climate change, the war in Afganistan, and the implementation of the Pol Pot regime.
hpierce, it’s a really long list of PW evil doing. For the sake of brevity, I thought one example might make the point.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
Don’t you guys find it a little annoying that PW has tried to kill the 5th Street safety improvements over ten years, while they worked to bring us indicted companies like United Water as a recommended finalist for sucking nearly $500,000,000 cash from Davis and Woodland rate payers to build the surface water plant? If I were the City Manager, I would be annoyed to have to deal with these messes that were entirely avoidable.
I would like this to remain civil. Yes, I have data. The City’s traffic counts on D Street and 8th Street jumped significantly in 2005. Accidents went up, too. The only change in the traffic environment was the split-phase signal timing at the F and G Street intersections on 5th Street. I would suggest you ask Public Works for the information.
Yes, I have credentials. Some degrees in the field (a couple of them from UCD) and 30 years of experience that started in a position exactly like the one being advertised. And no, I don’t think anyone on City staff wrote that job description to get me on board. But if I am wrong about that, I can point them to other qualified candidates. I like the job I have now.
stracy… are you willing to share your data? Please don’t include the horribly intoxicated female who went off the road (E. Eighth) in the wee hours of the morning, crashed into the tree and then into the house. There is no traffic calming solution to that.
[quote]experience that started in a position exactly like the one being advertised.[/quote]interesting… you started in a position that required years of experience… you must be a bloody genius.
hpierce said: you must be a bloddy genious. Yes, Steve is. And a nice guy, who has been unbelievably patient, and persistent.
I live yards from the D and 5th St intersection. I live what Steve describes, every day.
I have faith that Steve and friends are going to push these safety changes through.
Just thought it was interesting that stracy says his first job was a management position, which requires years of experience and a degree in a field (which he does not specify). Awesome (if true).
H. Nope, I’m sorry. If that section of 8th Street is deemed to be susceptible to traffic avoiding 5th Street, we keep that one in. Much as we wish that tragedy didn’t happen. There are some clear protocols for corridor studies that are spelled out in the Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies that were violated in the early analysis of 5th Street. ONDNA worked hard to get that flaw corrected, and won’t support backsliding now.
Basically, you count every accident of any type that happens on the street in question and those that happen on cross streets within either 100 feet of the primary street, or 200 feet, or to the back of the longest line of cars waiting on side streets.
Staff initially was counting only those accidents that happened inside the box of the crosswalks at an intersection, and disregarding anything between intersections. And further reducing accident counts by eliminating bicycle accidents on cross streets that don’t currently have bike lanes and aren’t being considered for bike lanes. In other words, making a case by sorting the data incorrectly.
We followed the rules and have been counting every accident on 5th or within that 100 foot boundary. Then after the street is reworked we count every accident of any type within those same boundaries. That is the science that lets us see what a change to the street really brings.
And I’m also sorry, but I will not be sending my data out any more. In good faith Davis Bicycles! shared our spreadsheets of the parking garage counts. Then they were manipulated with additional calculations that seemed to indicate there was a very high parking utilization rate downtown. That data which showed a completely different conclusion from what our counts showed was then circulated farther with a file name indicating it came from Davis Bicycles! Steve.
Ok, Steve… you are citing “facts” and for fear of “manipulation”, you will not share them. So we should take your word on ‘faith’ (can we say that in Davis?) that the facts exist, and should act on them based on your credentials. I think I understand. I hope others will, also.
Then just discount what I am saying, and I’m not asking you to act on anything. I am sure Public Works will share the raw data with you and you can replicate the analysis. But I don’t see the point at this time, and I can assure you that decoding 3,000 accidents is eye-bleeding work. The decisions on 5th Street have been made. Two years ago the Council approved the redesign. This week they signed off on the environmental document and contracted for the final design work. They also augmented the contract a small amount to do some preliminary design of traffic calming measures in the neighborhoods near 5th Street. Let’s look forward to the pending construction of a project that will finally address the safety problems on 5th, and those that have spilled over into the neighborhoods.
But I don’t understand why a discussion about addressing the hazards on the 5th Street corridor strays from policy, design solutions that have worked well in hundreds or thousand of other locations including some right here in Davis, and figuring out some of the details.
Let’s focus on the street, not personal attacks. What does it matter what my background is? Why do you assume the experience I cited was my first job? Have you read the job description that was on the agenda? Check it out. Under “Experience and Training” here is the first sentence you’ll find: “Any combination of experience and training that would likely provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying.” I’ll stand by my statement, but repeat that nothing in that job description is relevant to my plans for the future. I like commuting in my slippers.
[quote]Let’s look forward to the pending construction of a project that will finally address the safety problems on 5th, and those that have spilled over into the neighborhoods. [/quote]
Amen! I too look forward to the completion of the 5th Street Redesign, and thank all your efforts for shepherding this project to fruition, which was not an easy task. I was a skeptic at first, but was convinced this is the most sensible approach. I think it will prove to be a huge success…
[quote]Why do you assume the experience I cited was my first job? [/quote]Because you said so…[quote]…30 years of experience [u][b]that started[/b][/u] in a position [b]exactly like the one being advertised.[/b] [/quote]
Thirty years in the transportation planning field. (Actually, it’s more than that but I rounded down for simplicity’s sake.) My first job in that area was not my first job as a manager. Why don’t I see anyone else on this forum having to explain their credentials or their right to speak up on the issues being discussed? I am not stating the particulars of my experience because I don’t believe the purpose of these discussions is for anyone to pound their own drum. Please, can we get back to the issues, ideas, problems, and solutions? Steve Tracy.