By Robb Davis and Mont Hubbard
This didn’t come by happenstance. Rather it is the result of unceasing diligence and foresight by our political and activist forbears. For nearly 50 years, city leaders have made collective quality of life more important than the demands of individual interests. Citizens in 1966 proposed bike lanes but when these were spurned by recalcitrant Council members, they elected a new Council. Every subsequent one has demanded and funded connectivity in approved developments. The result is the wonderful connectedness we have: one can go almost anywhere as easily and conveniently by bike as by car.
Many issues emerge from the project EIR. Projected bike trip mode share for the development will be only 8%. It also adds 12,000 trips per day to and across Covell Blvd. at J St., already the busiest artery in the city (21,500 vehicles per day). It increases traffic by more than 50% and turns level of service (LOS) from A to D (level of service is a technical term for how freely flowing an intersection is, rated from A to F) at Covell and J during morning peak hours. Traffic effects ripple throughout the city. LOS will also decrease to level D at 8th and J during the AM peak hour. If the 8% bike trip mode share is accurate (we believe it may be less than 8%) the Cannery neighborhood will be one of the least friendly for biking in Davis.
But it’s no surprise why. Because proposed connectivity is so poor, with only one auto at-grade crossing of Covell at J St., almost all (OK, only 92%) of the 12,000 trips to work, school and shopping will be by automobile. The intersection at Covell and J will become in one fell swoop the most congested in the entire city. No parent in their right mind would send a fourth grader to school on a bike through the intersection at Covell and J. Residents will wind up driving their children to school at Birch Lane or North Davis Elementary because they aren’t confident in the bike safety /connectivity. Residents will probably even drive their cars to shop at Nugget, 3 blocks away.
The developer plans only one grade separated bike crossing of Covell to the SW of the project. This runs south just east of the railroad under the overpass, but as presently configured it is awkward, indirect and unsafe. Just after crossing under Covell it immediately turns east parallel to Covell and goes uphill to join the south Covell bike path. Instead, we believe it is essential for school kids that this one continue south along the east of the railroad to the H St tunnel, because the present Covell railroad overcrossing is not appropriate for young school kids. It is the steepest in the entire city, with grades more than 8% in spots (contrasted with the 5% grade on the Dave Pelz I-80 overcrossing). Further, the western ramp is narrow and makes a sharp turn south onto F St. right next to a bus stop.
But much, if not most, traffic will point to the S and SE. Davis Bicycles! believes it is essential to have two grade-separated bike crossings of Covell, including a second crossing to the SE near J or L St. allowing safe access for Holmes and Birch Lane elementary school students and Nugget shoppers.
Even though the development has some good sustainability features (solar, etc.), its lack of connectedness will result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Roughly half of the city’s GHG comes from transportation. Poor connectivity, consequent poor safety, and projected low bike mode share of the Cannery project mean that many good GHG features of housing design will be offset by extra high emissions from unneeded auto traffic. This development might be a good one in Roseville where an 8% bike mode share would double or triple their present bike usage, but it’s terrible for Davis – a true regression.
The developer is Omaha-based ConAgra, the largest private-label packaged food business in the United States. With 2012 revenues of US$13.3 Billion, it has been criticized for its lack of response to global climate change. A 2006 report by CERES, a non-profit climate change/sustainability organization, evaluated 100 leading companies on global warming response, on a 0 to 100 scale. ConAgra scored a total of 4 points (no, this is not a typo), the lowest of any of the food companies rated. A 2009 Newsweek ranking put ConAgra 342nd out of America’s 500 largest corporations for overall environmental score.
ConAgra will sell 550 housing units and, although we don’t know precisely, a conservative estimate is that they will clear $20-30K on each. This is $11-16 Million profit. Yet they are unwilling to spend another $2M or so to fully address bike connectivity, even though good bike connectivity can materially enhance the project and its appeal.
The developers don’t seem to understand that good bike connectivity is a strong economic advantage. Some estimate it costs $9000/year to own and operate an automobile. Good Cannery bike connectivity can be had for far less than this amount per household (but only paid once) allowing families to exist with only one automobile. Instead, the development makes Davis look more like other sprawling car-centric communities we’ve worked so hard not to emulate and takes us backwards, not forwards, with its transportation congestion.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. The development could be acceptable if the connectivity challenges were addressed squarely with a grade separated SE Covell bike crossing at J or L St. and SW connectivity to the H St. tunnel. Kids could, and would, ride bikes to Birch Lane, North Davis and Holmes schools rather than being ferried by their parents. Adults would ride three blocks on their bikes to shop at Nugget.
Building the Cannery project as designed will violate the unwritten social compact we all buy into when we choose to live in our wonderful city. The increased auto traffic will impact air quality, road capacity and the ability to attract more employers to our community.
The Cannery development should not be built until its bicycle connectivity is improved to be as good as or better than that of the community as a whole, and until it will support a bike mode share of the approximately 25% Davis has today. It needs a SE grade separated bike crossing of Covell near J or L St. and connection of the SW bike portal to the H St. tunnel. It shouldn’t be built without these. Period. To endorse our position please visit our website www.davisbicycles.org.
Maybe I am sleepy, but isn’t the title misleading? It does not seem you are saying (as it implies or at least I inferred) that the connectivity is good???
Robb and Mont
Thank you so much for this beautifully concise description of the problem of connectivity with the Cannery Project as currently proposed.
I can’t resist pigging backing off this with my personal profession driven concern of the issue of public safety if the rare, but not unheard of emergency evacuation of the neighborhood should ever be needed. Think of creating yet another Olive Drive situation.
Maybe I’m sleepy, but the title was meant to imply that Good Bike Connectivity Would Provide… not that it has good bike connectivity according to the authors…
The title infers that it’s already good.
Robb & Mont wrote:
> The developers don’t seem to understand that good
> bike connectivity is a strong economic advantage.
> Some estimate it costs $9000/year to own and operate
> an automobile.
I used to work for a developer (actually working for a “Big 6 firm crunching numbers for a developer) and while most “developers” understand that is costs ~$9K/yr. (~$0.50-$1.00/mile) to own and operate an auto (since they track every expense to the penny) very few “homebuyers” think about this and any major investment in bike connectivity will significantly reduce the profit of the developer.
> Even though the development has some good sustainability
> features (solar, etc.), its lack of connectedness will
> result in substantial greenhouse gas emissions.
I have a lot of friends that live all around Davis from El Macero (with no sidewalks or bike paths) to Arbors at Oakshade (that has many bike paths and a ton of access to the South Davis bike trail) and I have not met or heard of anyone that is not riding their bike due to poor “connectivity”. The people that want to ride find a way to do it despite poor “connectivity” (and even if you dream of a nice fancy grade separated bike trails at J and Covell you have to admit that it will not be tough to ride a bike on the street out of the new development).
I ride my bikes (I have three of them) more than most people and way more than most people in town that I know who work full time and have young kids (like I do). Most people I know are in the “prime home buying demographic” and most of them spend much more time talking about and looking for homes than they do riding bikes.
A few years ago someone sent me a link with photos of Robb “moving without a moving van”. I could be wrong but I’m guessing that 90% of the people in the photos helping him move had not bought $500-$900K homes in Davis over the past 5 years like 90% of the people we hang out with in town. It is important to remember that while Robb and most of his friends might pay more for nice bike “connectivity” most of my friends (that are actually buying homes with many looking right now) don’t really care…
P.S. Robb thanks for all your work on bike issues in town, this is not meant as a put down, I just want you to think about things from the perspective of a developer and the many people that don’t own bikes (or have not had them on the hooks in the garage for years)…
“The developer is Omaha-based ConAgra, the largest private-label packaged food business in the United States. With 2012 revenues of US$13.3 Billion, it has been criticized for its lack of response to global climate change. A 2006 report by CERES, a non-profit climate change/sustainability organization, evaluated 100 leading companies on global warming response, on a 0 to 100 scale. ConAgra scored a total of 4 points (no, this is not a typo), the lowest of any of the food companies rated. A 2009 Newsweek ranking put ConAgra 342nd out of America’s 500 largest corporations for overall environmental score.”
Old sources. See new citation below:
http://www.conagrafoods.com/news-room/news-ConAgra-Foods-Citizenship-Commitment-Recognized-by-Two-Leading-Sustainability-Measures-1734911
I admire Robb Davis for leading by example in both his work at Freedom From Hunger, in his personal life trying to live without a car and as a community leader with Davis Bicycles. However in this case he is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Demanding not one but two grade separated crossings seems a little extreme. Who else in the 50 years of bike advocacy in Davis has been required to provide that level of infrastructure?
“Who else in the 50 years of bike advocacy in Davis has been required to provide that level of infrastructure? “
wildhorse? but you’re really asking the wrong question, because in this respect cannery is unique – so what other project has had the connectivity challenges that require two grade separated crossings?
Toad asks:
> Who else in the 50 years of bike advocacy in Davis
> has been required to provide that level of infrastructure?
Then Davis Progressive wrote:
> wildhorse? but you’re really asking the wrong question…
Did the Wildhorse developers build (or pay for) ANY undercrossings?
The bike undercrossing that connects the SE corner of Wildhorse to the NW corner of Mace Ranch is east of the Wildhorse development on the east side of the Wildhorse greenbelt
i wasn’t sure, hence the question mark.
A more appropriate title was the one used by the Enterprise:
[b]Cannery needs better bike access[/b]
Robb moving by bike was and is admirable but that isn’t the point. Our main points are:
Davis bike mode share is 25%. The big reason Davis is such a desirable place to live is that car trip mode share is only 75%=100%-25%. And it needs to be less than 50% to meet Climate action goals. Cannery car mode share will be 92%. It won’t be a very nice place to live because nearly everyone going in and out will do so by car (it will be nice because it’s in Davis but it won’t add it’s share of niceness to the mix). The proposed bike access is tortuous, antiquated (built in the 60’s), too steep, and unsafe, especially for young school kids. The Cannery can be made to be as nice as everywhere else to live in Davis but only with good bike connectivity, i.e. another grade separated crossing. Otherwise it’s just another car-centric California development and it will drag the “niceness” of everyone else back down.
The Cannery as planned doesn’t do its share. A metaphor that comes to mind is that it’s like going to a party, where all other party-goers smell great, without showering. Everyone else smells good and the experience is nice for the smelly person in that sense. But everyone else bears the smelly load and even the smelly person would enjoy it more if she/he did their part by showering.
SouthofDavis: The reason you haven’t
“met or heard of anyone that is not riding their bike due to poor “connectivity””
is because virtually everywhere in Davis [u]has[/u] good connectivity, especially the places you mentioned. These places are connectivity nirvana.
Believe me, you and your fourth grader will have to be really brave or foolish to ride your bike to school through Covell and J after the traffic there increases by 50%. To get tentative bicyclists onto bikes requires that we separate them from the autos.
[quote]And it needs to be less than 50% to meet Climate action goals.[/quote]
Never going to happen.
I think the title given to this article is unfortunate and I want to personally acknowledge SOD that I may have jumped into water (re: economic benefit issues) that I had no business swimming in. However, I want to reiterate Mont’s point that what we really want to focus on is the issue of mode share. Our City has set targets for these in three documents (at least): the Climate Action Plan, the revised Transportation Element of the General Plan (not yet approved) and the Bicycle Plan (a new one is on the way). Presumably we have set these goals to reduce carbon emissions because we believe that matters. Such documents should, we believe, guide our development decisions and we do not see them as guiding documents in this project for reasons we have stated.
Toad–I hear you saying we are making perfection the enemy of the good but I am not sure if that is true. First, the SW crossing we are proposing is FAR from perfect and there will be NO perfect option for connectivity from this site until such time as the rail line moves or UP (the owner) becomes more accommodating to at-grade crossings. If UP offered AT LEAST an at grade crossing (signalized of course), our connectivity options on the SW would be great. Unfortunately that is not on offer so we are left with less than perfect options all around. Second, I am not sure what we are asking for is even too costly for Con Agra. The numbers we put in here for how much they are likely to earn are probably way off but, as I noted in an article on asymmetrical information a few weeks ago, I am not sure if what I am asking for is financially reasonable or not because they are not required to reveal how much they are likely to earn on this development. Our requests may be quite reasonable but we get played as the bad guys for asking for them simply because representatives of Con Agra say they are not feasible. Should I take their word on that? Infeasible relative to what?
The point is this (and this circles back to my original point), Con Agra must know that our City has set certain mode share goals and thus when they enter into this process they should be aware of our desire to create development that gives us a chance to reach them. Our requests should not come as a surprise.
In the end, we are asking for a very reasonable thing: that families that will someday live in that community be given a full array of transportation choices for all ages/abilities like every other community in this city (except for places like Olive Drive perhaps). This is about giving people choices.
I rarely use personal anecdotes but allow me to use one here. When my family moved to Davis in 1999 we bought a home in South Davis. My wife informed me when we moved: “do not expect me to bike around town–I don’t like to bike and I don’t feel safe on streets”. My children’s sentiments were the same. Once here we discovered we lived in a highly connected community near parks, shopping and with safe access to schools. Within weeks we had all discovered that biking here was not only a quick way to get around but it led to more autonomy for my kids and was a cheap form of exercise that allowed us to save money. We were a typical family in every way but because South Davis had been planned with connectivity in mind (and, yes, developers did pay for infrastructure including tunnels that would not be opened up until years later), we had an array of transportation options. Mont and I are merely asking that future inhabitants of Cannery have the same options and the same choices. (NB: my entire family still lives in Davis along with two grandchildren and we all bike or walk to all destinations in town–this includes my once-reticent wife).
Mont wrote:
> Davis bike mode share is 25%.
Do you have a link to this study? Remember I’m a big bike fan but it seems to me that we are not anywhere near 25% (in town if we don’t count trips on the UCD campus). Correct me if I am wrong, but if we are at 25% shouldn’t there be one bike on the road (and parked downtown and other shopping malls) for every three cars?
> The big reason Davis is such a desirable
> place to live is that car trip mode share
> is only 75%=100%-25%.
This may be “big” for you and Robb, but I’m getting if you talk to the top 20 Realtors in town they have probably never heard even a single person mention “car trip mode share” as the reason they are buying a home in Davis…
> Cannery car mode share will be 92%.
This is basically a made up number since no one can know how many people in homes that have not been built or sold will ride their bikes. “Who” buys the homes makes a bigger difference than “where” the bike crossing is (if Streng makes senior housing a big part of the Cannery the bike percentage will drop).
> It won’t be a very nice place to live because nearly
> everyone going in and out will do so by car (it will
> be nice because it’s in Davis but it won’t add it’s
> share of niceness to the mix).
El Macero is a nice place to live and it not only has almost everyone going in and out by car, but it is not even in Davis… If you and Robb don’t think it is a “nice place to live” you don’t have to buy there (odds are the people that buy homes will think it is a nice place)…
> The proposed bike access is tortuous, antiquated
> (built in the 60’s), too steep, and unsafe, especially
> for young school kids.
Growing up in the hills of the San Francisco Peninsula I laugh when people complain about the “steep” hills in Davis. I rode to kindergarten (by myself without a helmet) at 5 on hills a lot longer and steeper than anything Davis has (or ever will have).
> Otherwise it’s just another car-centric California
> development and it will drag the “niceness” of
> everyone else back down.
Do you really think that lack of a bike tunnel will drag the “niceness” of EVERYONE else back down (are people in West and South Davis worried that things won’t be as “nice” without a bike tunnel miles away)?
> SouthofDavis: The reason you haven’t “met or heard
> of anyone that is not riding their bike due to poor
> “connectivity”” is because virtually everywhere in
> Davis has good connectivity, especially the places
> you mentioned. These places are connectivity nirvana.
I mentions El Macero (that like the Cannery has two entrances on one side (crossing an even busier street with more big rigs) how is this “nirvana” but the Cammery is bad?
> Believe me, you and your fourth grader will have
> to be really brave or foolish to ride your bike
> to school through Covell and J after the traffic
> there increases by 50%.
Many people already call me “brave and foolish” because I ride a bike so much (even more people call me “brave and foolish” when they find out I tow a kid in the Burley).
> To get tentative bicyclists onto bikes
> requires that we separate them from the autos.
The number of “tentative bicyclists” is very small (not many SUV and Minivan driving “soccer moms” are going to EVER tow the kids in a Burly (or tag a long bike)…
cannery is basically an island. to the west is the tracks, to the north is farmland, to the east is a hostile neighbor and farmland, and to the south is a busy-congested road. we need to create access cannery simply becomes another driver’s only bedroom development. cut off from the community. it doesn’t matter if it’s close to dt as the crow flies, it’s cutoff from it.
I didn’t appreciate how unusual and unique Davis’ bike connectivity is until we briefly considered a move to a similar size town (both in size and population). To steal DP’s teminology the entire town was made up of “island” subdivisions. They were cut off from each other by walls and busy streets. There were few bike lanes and no bike under or over crossings, no connecting green belts. On a day to day basis I drive more then I ride my bike but still the idea of living in this town, in one of these subdivisions, which all felt so disconnected from each other, made me claustrophobic, plus the traffic was horrific. This quality of life issue was the main reason we decided to stay in Davis, even though relocating was a better career option.
I just realized what the problem is with the 8% bike trip figure. I had to try and figure out how it could be even remotely possible for the overall city figure to be 25% and I am still not sure I do believe it, but the figure is brought up by very high bike usage in a few concentrated areas and much lower usage in the rest of the city. Kids going to the University or even grade schools are concentrated in bike use. This 8% for a neighborhood is being compared to the overall city average, it’s not a valid comparison, a neighborhood by neighborhood comparison is what would be valid. The numbers would be a lot closer I am sure.
That said, the Cannery is still boxed in and I think is largely going to end up a bedroom community anyway, if it moves forward.
It would serve much better as a business site and the only way that is going to happen is for the city to stop leading the developers on and make it clear that it will remain zoned as it currently is. At that point I would expect some eventual action in that direction.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I can’t resist piggy-backing off this with my personal profession driven concern of the issue of public safety if the rare, but not unheard of emergency evacuation of the neighborhood should ever be needed. Think of creating yet another Olive Drive situation.”[/i]
medwoman, do you have the same concern about El Macero in an emergency evacuation? How about San Marino, which only has a single entry onto Mace?
[quote]medwoman, do you have the same concern about El Macero in an emergency evacuation? How about San Marino, which only has a single entry onto Mace?[/quote]
What’s the population of El Macero?
What’s the population on San Marino?
What’s the typical traffic on Mace?
What’s the projected population of the Cannery project?
What’s the typical traffic on Covell?
Is this even an apples to kumquats comparison?
To repeat my comment on this same text from the Enterprise:
This is a good chunk of the developer’s profits. Beyond that, the arguments made are flawless. The developers should accept community values in transportation and create a project does not degrade alternate transportation mode share; or more to the point the City Council should insist. As Con Agra destroyed valued industrial infrastructure worth millions to force the building of higher-profits-for-them residential, F-’em if they can’t work with the community by funding safe and cleaner and less traffic transportation alternatives. The two connectors proposed by the authors are exactly what the project needs. As these paths are natural directions of travel, you can bet unauthorized and much-less-safe paths of kids cutting holes in the fence and crossing the railroad and darting across Covell, in the places where these alternatives should be built, will occur. Require the developer to do this right out of the gate.
Matt
“medwoman, do you have the same concern about El Macero in an emergency evacuation? How about San Marino, which only has a single entry onto Mace?”
I would have the same concern about attempting to move any concentrated population out of an area through what would essentially represent
A “bottleneck” in a true emergency. I am not as familiar with the El Macero and San Marino situations and thus cannot address those directly.
I would like to stress this as a concern only. Perhaps there are safety standards and estimates for the amount of time necessary to evacuate and I am simply not aware of them. If they exist, and this project meets them, then that particular concern would be resolved. If they do not exist, then in my opinion, some estimate should be developed for public safety before we put in another at risk community. If the standards do exist, and are not being taken into account by the developers and city staff, even worse.
We have one demonstrably unsafe situation on Olive drive with only one way out, and half of that route dependent upon the bottleneck of the Richards underpass. I do not believe that we should be undertaking a second project with the potential for the same problem.
If this issue has been successfully addressed, I would love to hear it. If not, I wish it would be prior to proceeding.
Don asked about traffic. Here are the latest (2013) City ADT traffic counts:
What’s the typical traffic on Mace?
MACE BLVD S/O CHILES RD 4/15/2008 13199 North-6665 South-6534
But these overstate the traffic at entrances to El Macero and San Marino since much drains through Cowell.
What’s the projected population of the Cannery project?
Estimated about 10600 new vehicle trips per day.
What’s the typical traffic on Covell?
E COVELL BLVD E/O F ST 10/30/2012 21501 East-10904 West-10597
Covell is estimated to increase to 2200 cars per hour at peak. Mace now carries about 1100 at peak.
A nice color online traffic map is at
[url]http://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=50bf9134f32240ec9778b58b7f4b63c2[/url]
SouthofDavis:
“This is basically a made up number since no one can know how many people in homes that have not been built or sold will ride their bikes.”
All future projections are “made up” but they are done by professionals whose job is to project. The numbers are from the EIR.
BTW In your exhaustive analysis you forgot to comment on my “smelly metaphor” 🙂
dlemongello:
Every bike trip by a 7th grader over the Pelz overcrossing is a car trip her mom doesn’t make to drive her from South Davis to Harper. A car trip is a trip and the best ones are those that don’t occur.
Mont wrote:
> BTW In your exhaustive analysis you forgot
> to comment on my “smelly metaphor
Glad I didn’t since you either can’t respond to my comments (or just didn’t want to take the time).
When “professionals” project numbers they are wrong FAR more often than they are right (can you find even a single pension that has a balance of + or – 10% of the “projections” of 5 years ago or a city that has expenses of or – 10% of the “projections” of 5 years ago?
SouthofDavis
[quote]Do you have a link to this study?[/quote]
There is no study per se because it’s a hard number to measure. It’s our best guess and may have an uncertainty of +-5%. There is some data however. The Campus 2011-12 Travel Survey http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/?page_id=10063&pub_id=1644 found that 46 percent bike to get there, 6 percent walk or skate, 24 percent drive alone, 6 percent carpool or get a ride, 18 percent ride the bus, and 1 percent ride the train. This is only a 30% car mode share at the largest employer in town. The League of American Bicyclists recently found a 22% mode share for Davis commuters. I observed last evening for an hour at 3d and F. There are an amazing number of cyclists. I bet the number of bikes parked downtown may exceed the number of cars.
[quote]they have probably never heard even a single person mention “car trip mode share” as the reason they are buying a home in Davis…[/quote]
Most people probably wouldn’t even know what we meant if we used the term. I doubt people know (or even ask themselves) why it’s so nice to live in Davis. This is my feeling. What’s your big reason?
[quote]El Macero is a nice place to live… [/quote]
Some of my best friends live in El Macero and I don’t hold it against them. But as the previous statistics bear out, the traffic at their two exits doesn’t hold a candle to what the intensity will be at Covell and J.
[quote]I rode to kindergarten (by myself without a helmet) at 5 on hills a lot longer and steeper than anything Davis has (or ever will have).[/quote]
Through the snow too?:-) Does it make sense to have the only separated bike exit from Cannery be the steepest hill in town and the second be through the most crowded intersection with cars? No.
[quote]Do you really think that lack of a bike tunnel will drag the “niceness” of EVERYONE else back down…[/quote]
Yes. 10,600 car trips have to go somewhere.
[quote]The number of “tentative bicyclists” is very small[/quote]
This is incorrect. There are many more non-cyclists than cyclists (at least we agree on this). If these are imagined as arrayed from most confident to least, it’s the less fearful, more confident ones that are already riding. You are one of these. The others must be coaxed and convinced to ride by making their actual and perceived safety higher. The planned Cannery bike access doesn’t do this by any stretch of the imagination.
[quote]he number of “tentative bicyclists” is very small[/quote]
Since the anecdote about bicycling to school from age 5 was shared. I would like to present the other side.
At one point in time from about 18-28, I went everywhere on my bike. I did not own a car and preferred my bike to public transportation. This was in Long Beach, California, Santa Barbara and Davis. I had a fall which subsequently has placed me in the category of “tentative bicyclists”.
Yes, we do exist. I don’t know how many of us there are, but since I already have a heightened sensitivity to safety issues, both personal and public what I can say for sure is that any impediment to my feeling of safety
( say an additional 10,600 car trips) would put a damper on my enthusiasm for riding my bike.
In my case, it really doesn’t matter since with the exception of trips to work, I walk almost exclusively but realize that not everyone has the luxury of downsizing to within three blocks of downtown. For me, any new development, in order to even be considered should actively promote walking, cycling, and public transportation in order to reduce emissions. It amazes me that there is a current conversation ongoing about the purported harm from cell phones and fluoride, and yet the same folks who seem concerned about these issues are curiously silent about the well demonstrated, actual proven harm from increasing automobile emissions.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”What’s the population of El Macero?
What’s the population on San Marino?
What’s the typical traffic on Mace?
What’s the projected population of the Cannery project?
What’s the typical traffic on Covell?
Is this even an apples to kumquats comparison?”[/i]
The number of housing units in El Macero is 447 (410 SFRs and 37 Condos). In addition, a quick call to the El Macero Country Club gave me 2,100 golfers teeing off each week (700 car trips to the Club each day) plus probably another 50 diners a day and another 25 meeting attendees on average a day. Net that down for the trips that never make it to Mace and that is 500-600 Club trips a day added to the 894 home-based car trips a day (2 per household) for a total of 1,400-1,500 car trips per day. Cannery will have 547 housing units plus the businesses. Lets for argument say that the businesses generate the same traffic volume as the Country Club does, so you have 1,400-1,500 for El Macero and 1,600-1,700 for The Cannery.
Projected population of The Cannery would be 547 units times the City-wide average of about 2.8 residents per unit, which comes to 1,530 residents in the housing units, plus the number of employees in the commercial portion.
The typical traffic pattern coming out of South El Macero Drive turning on to Mace at El Macero’s South entrance is about 90% Northbound and 10% Southbound. In addition the through traffic volumes on Mace at that corner are equal Northbound and Southbound because there isn’t really any other practical way to exit your destination if you come down Mace other than to go back up Mace. A few people who came in on Mace exit using Montgomery to Danbury going by Montgomery Elementary School. Even fewer people who came in on Mace exit by using Tremont Road.
The typical traffic pattern coming out of North El Macero Drive turning on to Mace at El Macero’s North entrance is in excess of 95% Northbound and less than 5% Southbound. The through traffic volumes on Mace at the flashing red light at North El Macero Drive follow the same pattern as those described above for South El Macero.
That makes the planned right-turn-only plan for the second entry/exit of The Cannery much more functional than the South El Macero entrance if it were similarly configured. Residents of The Cannery will probably come to the intersections in similar proportions from the east and the west, and they will probably exit The Cannery in equal proportions to the east and the west. Therefore the second Cannery entrance serves the large number of residents who are proceeding (or want to proceed) westbound on Covell. A similar solution at South El Macero Drive would serve those exiting very well, but serve those looking to enter abominably.
Looks like an apples to apples comparison to me.
Matt Williams said:
[quote]so you have 1,400-1,500 [car trips] for El Macero and 1,600-1,700 for The Cannery. [/quote]
Sorry Matt, something’s [u]very[/u] wrong with your arithmetic or assumptions. This estimate is off by nearly an order of magnitude. The Cannery EIR estimates 13,354 gross new daily trips but only 12,040 new [u]external[/u] trips per day from the Cannery of which 10,600 (92%) will be by automobile. Their methodology is explained in section 3.14 of the EIR and is based on a mixed use trip generation model developed by Fehr and Peers, a Sacramento consultant company.
One must not forget about the 236,000 sq ft of Cannery retail/commercial space. This (office and retail) accounts for more than half (7033) of the new trips.
There are already 21,500 trips at Covell/J. 10,600 more will be added. It’s not apples to apples. Not even close.
Mont, I’m totally confused by your numbers. I think you are right. I am using very different assumptions than they are. Take 13,354 and subtract 7,033 and you get 6,321 trips per day from 547 residential units? That is over 11.5 trips per day per residential unit. On a busy day my wife and I take a total of 4 trips. On a normal day a total of 2 trips, one for each of us, or two for me and none for her. Are you saying that we are 3-5 times lower than average. Do you and Lyn go out of your driveway anything near 23 times every 2 days, whether it is on a bicycle or an automobile?
Bottom-line, Cannery has 547 residential units and El Macero has 447 residential units, so if the Fehr and Peers numbers for Cannery are accurate then El Macero’s residences will have 5,165 trips per day rather than the 894 I projected. How many individual businesses does the 7,033 office and retail trips get spread across? It will be interesting to see how my 500-600 trips a day into the Country Club compares to what they have for each business.
Matt said:
[quote]That is over 11.5 trips per day per residential unit.[/quote]
I just spoke with a friend who gave me a quick traffic estimation tutorial. First, a visit to the hardware store (or to work) generates two trips; the trip there and the trip back. Estimation of trip generation capacity for a development is dependent on many factors, among them income level, the kinds of dwelling units, average number of bedrooms, average age (i.e. are they breeders who need to schlep kids to soccer practice and violin lessons or not), location (especially related to public transit), whether the development is exurban or suburban, and many others. I was assured the 11.5 number of trips you calculate per household (only just less than 6 visits per day by household members to somewhere) isn’t out of the ordinary, and that traffic estimation is more of an art than a science.
[quote]El Macero’s residences will have 5,165 trips per day rather than the 894 I projected[/quote]
Although your number of 894 for El Macero is definitely too low, I think 5165 is perhaps a bit too high because the measured traffic on Mace S of Chiles (13199) seems too small to allow it (but maybe not). There are lots of other houses in S Davis off Mace. Is El Macero aging? I agree that my own household (two retired folks) makes far fewer than the average number of trips but this is certainly age related. I have no idea (but I’m sure the City and the developer do have assumptions) about how many and what kinds of Cannery businesses are involved.
The bottom line is that Covell east of F now carries 21,500 (this is measured) and the traffic engineers estimate that after Cannery build-out 10,600 more will be added to this. This swamps Mace traffic, whatever it is at El Macero Drives/San Marino/Montgomery.
Mont said . . .
[i]”I just spoke with a friend who gave me a quick traffic estimation tutorial. First, a visit to the hardware store (or to work) generates two trips; the trip there and the trip back.”[/i]
Okay. I assumed in my numbers that a trip was a trip. You go out and you come back all in the same trip. So my original numbers were half what they should have been.
Mont said . . .
[i]”Although your number of 894 for El Macero is definitely too low, I think 5,165 is perhaps a bit too high because the measured traffic on Mace S of Chiles (13,199) seems too small to allow it (but maybe not). There are lots of other houses in S Davis off Mace.”[/i]
Mace south of Chiles has very little on the east side of Mace other than El Macero. The West side of Mace includes Willowbank and San Marino and a few people who turn right on El Macero Drive into the City residential area. Given that balance, 5,165 out of 13,199 actually seems pretty close.
However, if the 13,199 for Mace S of Chiles includes all the ins and outs of the El Macero Shopping Center and the turns off Mace onto Cowell, then the El Macero number would surely be lower than 5,165. Do you know where the Mace S of Chiles counter is laid across the road?
Mont said . . .
[i]”Is El Macero aging? I agree that my own household (two retired folks) makes far fewer than the average number of trips but this is certainly age related.”[/i]
Did the Beverly Hillbillies strike oil? Yes, unfortunately El Macero is aging and probably has fewer than average kids living at home per household than average.
Mont said . . .
[i]”The bottom line is that Covell east of F now carries 21,500 (this is measured) and the traffic engineers estimate that after Cannery build-out 10,600 more will be added to this. This swamps Mace traffic, whatever it is at El Macero Drives/San Marino/Montgomery.”[/i]
Unless I misunderstood medwoman’s original point about an emergency evacuation, I wouldn’t think the key issue in and emergency evacuation would be the ambient flow on the receiving street, but rather the ambient flow out of the development through the two exit points.
Further, Don Shor seemed to be denigrating the efficiency of the right turn only restriction on Cannery’s second entrance/exit. That too is independent of the ambient traffic level on the arterial. It is much more a function of destination. A very large portion of the traffic exiting Cannery will want to go west rather than south or east. Similarly a very large portion of the traffic returning to Cannery will be coming from the east. The returning traffic coming from the south and the west will be well served by the J Street entrance, as will the traffic exiting Cannery and going east and south.