On Sunday, Eileen Samitz wrote that “your articles continue to ignore and side-step the serious problems and impacts by a mega-dorm project like Lincoln40 and try to simplify it to a numbers or ratio issue.” In her comment, which we re-printed as an article on Monday, she raises a number of points that we will be addressing over the course of the coming days and weeks.
Ms. Samitz writes: “The massive size of the Lincoln40 project which would be located on the far east end of Olive Drive would bring enormous traffic and circulation impacts on Olive Drive and Richards Blvd.
“There would be over 700 Lincoln40 residents needing to get across Richards to UCD which would necessitate interrupting the traffic signal at Richards and Olive Drive constantly for the students to get to the UCD campus all day long, not just peak hours. This in turn will further the backed-up traffic along Richards corridor to more like 30 minutes or more, rather than 10-minutes or more currently. That longer back-up of traffic means that far more car fuel will be burned and far more fumes will deteriorate the air quality.”
Is traffic a concern on this corridor? Yes. There is a reason why the city is going to apply for a grant for an additional crossing over the railroad tracks and a reason why the city is applying for a grant for the Richards-I80 Interchange.
However, let us not be absurd here, the added volume will not cause traffic to back up by 30 minutes. Seven hundred residents are not going to come out all at once from the project to jam the streets. This actually goes beyond hyperbole.
The actual traffic study only shows minimal levels of delay at the key intersections along the Richards corridor. The Richards Blvd/Olive Drive projection shows about a 30-second delay AM and PM. The 1st and E intersection has just under a 30-second delay morning and evening. That means there is a total of about a one-minute delay to get through Olive and E Street intersections as you are coming through the tunnel.
That may underestimate it slightly and it may understate the problem somewhat, but it is hardly the ten-minute delay now, and the added volumes from Lincoln40 are categorically not going to triple 
delays – much less make it a 30-minute delay.
Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants found that the impact of the existing condition plus the project’s effect on peak hour intersections is “less than significant.” They write, “While the LOS grade does not change, additional delay occurs at Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive during the PM peak hour, which operates at LOS D, generally due to the increase in westbound vehicle and bicycle traffic.”
The city has actually done quite a bit of study, including the Richards Blvd – Olive Drive Corridor Traffic Study that was released in October 2016 from Fehr & Peers. The developer here is required to analyze their project under existing conditions. The city has told the Vanguard they fully expect that, within five years, the Richards-I80 interchange and the configuration of the Richards-Olive Drive intersection will be reconstructed.
Sources in the city point out that there is a reluctance to believe the traffic analysis by those on the commission and those in the community because it doesn’t comport with our personal observations or experiences, but in the traffic study analysis they took actual traffic and vehicular counts from the properties on Olive Drive – the baseline data is based on how people are actually traveling in the adjacent apartment complexes. They are not using estimated formulas to drive the circulation analysis – rather, they are tracking actual travel behavior.
These sources note that it is tempting for people to look at the existing conditions and come to the conclusion that the corridor cannot handle additional development. But while the city believes, even without the improvements, they could make Lincoln40 work without impacting the level of service simply through signal modifications, with the major improvements they expect circulation to actually improve.
Again, that can’t be part of the existing conditions analysis – but it means that, despite claims to the contrary, the traffic conditions will actually improve over existing conditions in time. The corridor study concluded that, even with the planned development at Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC, currently on hold), the Hotel Conference Center (which has since been downsized) and Nishi (defeated at the polls), there is sufficient capacity to handle the vehicular volumes at the Olive-Richards intersection. And that is under an existing conditions analysis.
The corridor study further notes, “The final memorandum on the Lincoln40 trip generation and distribution shows lower traffic volumes of 45 AM and 63 PM peak hour trips based on further trip generation studies.” (The original estimates were 62 in the AM and 85 in the PM during peak hours)
The consultants note, “This information was not available in time for the analysis of the Richards Boulevard-Olive Drive corridor. Since the revised trip estimates are lower, the impact of Lincoln40 trips will likely be less than reported below.”
That is hardly the level of traffic that is going to create delays of the length that Eileen Samitz suggests.
All of this looks at existing conditions, but the existing conditions are likely to vastly improve if the city gets, as expected, the SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) regional funding grant to improve both the highway interchange and the intersection. SACOG considers this “a regionally significant project” and is actively encouraging the city to go forward with the application.
Sources tell the Vanguard that the city fully expects this interchange improvement to be built within the next five years. The city fully believes that the future conditions will be vastly different, from a circulation standpoint.
The city plans to bundle the interchange improvement with the Olive Drive off-ramp closure. That will change the nature of Olive Drive, turning it from a freeway access point to more of a neighborhood type of street. This cannot be done without the interchange improvements, because of the need for the additional capacity from the interchange reconfiguration and the Olive-Richards intersection reconfiguration.
The city would not do the Olive Dr. off-ramp closure first, since that would have impacts on the existing system. Simply closing the off-ramp and leaving the interchange as it is, the studies show it does cause level of service problems, but that is not what is proposed.
Instead, when they reconfigure the freeway interchange into a tight diamond, the studies show it preserves the level of service such that the city can then close the off-ramp without causing additional problems. The traffic analysis is pretty clear on that. The reconfiguration gives the city the additional capacity to handle the incremental traffic increase caused by diverting westbound traffic to the Richards Blvd. exit rather than Olive Drive.
We will address other points raised in future columns.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“let us not be absurd here. 700 residents are not going to come out all at once from the project to jam the streets”
And let’s also be fair about the statements of other commenters. Eileen never implied that all 700 would be coming out at the same time. Her comment included “throughout the day”.
“The city has told the Vanguard that they fully expect that within five years, the Richards-I80 interchange and the reconfiguration of the Richards-Olive Drive sections, will be reconstructed.”
Unless of course it is not for any of a number of possible reasons. This is speculation that I do not think that we should rely on.
“ But while the city believes even without the improvements, they could make Lincoln40 work without impacting level of service simply through signal modifications”
This hypothesis should be easy to test. Make the proposed signal changes now and see if the current circulation actually does improve.
” Eileen never implied that all 700 would be coming out at the same time. Her comment included “throughout the day”.”
Except that she then claimed: “This in turn will further the backed-up traffic along Richards corridor to more like 30 minutes or more, rather than 10-minutes or more currently.” My absurd comment was in response to that. It might take 10 minutes at 9 am to drive from Montgomery to G St in downtown Davis. Adding a few cars, bikes, and peds, is not going to turn that into a 30 minute trip. That’s where my comment comes from.
“Unless of course it is not for any of a number of possible reasons. This is speculation that I do not think that we should rely on.”
That’s why the report relies on “existing conditions” not speculation about an improvement. However, the reality is that the city is planning to improve the corridor and believe that this will occur.
” Eileen never implied that all 700 would be coming out at the same time. Her comment included “throughout the day”.”
Right. And let’s also be clear that the 700 would not be evenly spread throughout the day, but rather, would come in bunches that correlate with the beginning of each class time. You can see this in the traffic on Russell, for example, and the pattern will repeat here if the Lincoln40 is mostly students.
But we have the traffic analysis that shows an impact of 45 in the AM and 63 in the PM. Is that sufficient to cause travel time to go from 10 minutes to 30 minutes? That’s the heart of my comment there. And I think that’s pure hyperbole by Eileen.
But what are the assumptions that go into that traffic analysis? Are those assumptions consistent with known behavior patterns of students or not? If the traffic analysis assumes a steady flow of students throughout the day, then the results of the analysis are bogus. A proper traffic analysis woud have to determine when students are typically going to and coming from classes — again, this will be in waves, concentrated at popular class times — and factor that in. If a popular class time coincides with a time that there is already a lot of traffic, then perhaps Eileen’s claim is not hyperbole after all.
Roberta: My understanding is what they did is looked at the actual traffic patterns at Lexington and some of the other similar apartment buildings and extrapolated from those figures to arrive at their traffic flow assumptions.
From the article above:
Adjacent apartments are relevant data only if they have the same population that we expect to have in Lincoln40, namely students.
But how did they collect the data and what did they do with the data that they collected? Did they collect throughout the day to ensure that they were hitting the peak periods (which might be waves of, say, 15-20 minutes in duration every hour or so, depending on day/time of the week)? Did they use averages or the raw data at particular times? Student traffic patterns are harder to study than typical commuters, which have a simple morning time and an evening time.
Roberta Millstein said . . . “Adjacent apartments are relevant data only if they have the same population that we expect to have in Lincoln40, namely students.”
Good point Roberta. In this case the apartments they used for relevant data are The Lexington, which is one of the UCD Master Leased complexes, so it is 100% students.
For Tia’s benefit here is the chart of the impact assuming only existing conditions:
Tia’s last sentence should be looked at further… a valid ‘test’ could not be made until UCD is back in session… say, mid-late October…
“And I think that’s pure hyperbole by Eileen.”
I agree that the time estimates offered by Eileen were hyperbole. I do not think that it is useful to fight back by offering one’s own. I see that as a way that conversations on the Vanguard frequently devolve.
And thanks for the table. Actual information is helpful. That is part of the reason that I would suggest that city staff support their hypothesis that a change in light configuration would help with the traffic problem. If that is true, it should be as true now as after Lincoln 40 , so why not test the hypothesis to provide the actual data ?
It’s not clear who controls the light at Richards and Olive. CalTrans controls the lights over Hwy 113 (which can be frustrating coming from West Davis.)
It is crucially important to realize that the Richard/Olive signal is not in a ‘vacuum’… it is part of of a corridor, including the signalized intersections at: First and D; First and E; Cowell/Richards @ E-B ramps; Cowell and Research Park Drive; Cowell @ Drew.
They do not function fully independently…
Because of this CalTrans and the City have an agreement as to signal timing responsibilities… it’s been years since I was familiar with the details… as I recall, City does the timing, with consultation with CalTrans. Just ask PW to share the current terms of that agreement.
Tia:
Apparently it is:
“…The applicant shall construct the striping improvements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As part of this improvement, the coordinated traffic signals between First Street / D Street and Richards Boulevard / Research Park Drive shall be re-timed to provide efficient traffic flow.”
Barring the need to buy/change out controllers/detection equipment, poles/heads, Tia’s point about “can we see this now?” is still pertinent…
‘Traffic folk’ do not tend to think of those things as “improvements”… they tend to call those “equipment”… we tend to look at configuration of physical street/alignment as “improvements”… it’s a ‘language’/terminology/professional jargon thing… often ‘re-worded’ for those who do not understand… [I’d use the term d***-ing d**n, but pretty sure I’d be sanctioned if I used that term…]
I don’t disagree, simply trying to provide facts for people.
Are you talking about traffic in terms of bikes or cars? Students are not going to be driving their cars to campus. They will ride their bikes, walk or try to take a unitrans bus.
Closing the Olive Drive off ramp will decrease the number of cars flying down Olive Drive to make that right turn into town and make the street safer for bikes. Richards/Olive should have a bike/pedestrian only crossing period, so that bikes are not trying to cross at the same time cars are trying to make left turns off of Richards and right/left turns off of Olive.
Good point… actually, the analysis is based on “trips”… and then there are assumptions as to how many of those are by car, by transit, by bicycle, by foot, etc. Ex. Fifth St (old Families First) has great transit (Unitrans), bicycle, and reasonable pedestrian connections…
Haven’t looked at the mix/modes the DEIR assumes… would expect the bicycle mode to be significantly higher than City-wide average… particularly given how UCD prices parking…
In college, I used bicycle to get to and from campus… from an apartment near Covell… even in the rain… many did in the 70’s…
The proposed project is closer to campus than that…
Both impact intersections, as do pedestrians. (Unless there’s an overpass or underpass, which is used by both bicyclists and pedestrians.)
Bicyclists and pedestrians don’t always “comfortably” share the same dedicated space, either.
If there’s ANY development at this site, the city should ensure that there are (both) intersection “improvements” in place (for auto traffic), AND an appropriate overpass/underpass BEFORE construction of the development is complete.
(And – hopefully – without burdening the rest of the city, for these costs. That is, unless the city wants to continue subsidizing developers/developments that belong on campus.)
Oh, well. The city has lots of money, I guess. And, after all, the grant money (to cover a portion of the costs) is “in the bag”, according to some.
What could possibly go wrong?
The impact of bikes and pedestrians on the intersection is minimal. There will be an additional phase to the lighting sequence. I believe the impact is less than significant.
“…The applicant shall construct the striping improvements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As part of this improvement, the coordinated traffic signals between First Street / D Street and Richards Boulevard / Research Park Drive shall be re-timed to provide efficient traffic flow.”
Kind of interesting that the same “pro-development” individuals who relentlessly DOWNPLAY the importance of SACOG “fair share” growth
requirements“allotments” are now COUNTING on SACOG to help subsidize this development.And David, that’s a great “partial” response. What about the rest of the “improvements”?
Good to know that you believe that the impacts are “less than significant”.
“Kind of interesting that the same “pro-development” individuals who relentlessly DOWNPLAY the importance of SACOG “fair share” growth requirements “allotments” are now COUNTING on SACOG to help subsidize this development.”
Apples and Oranges
“What about the rest of the “improvements”?”
Which improvements are you referring to?
They are not requirements. They are allotments. You do understand what the difference is now, right?
All Davis has to do to be eligible for grant funds is have a housing element in the General Plan that is current and certified. No housing has to be built in order for the city to be eligible for the funds. No housing projects have to be approved for the city to be eligible for the funds. SACOG cannot compel a city to grow.
You do understand all that, right?
“You do understand all that, right?”
NO, he doesn’t. Isn’t that abundantly clear?
Don: I’ve understood that for a long time. Ensuring that space is available to meet SACOG “allotments” is a separate issue from actual construction.
Uh, oh – looks like somebody angered David!
The same one’s you’re referring to in your article (e.g., Olive/Richards reconfiguration, bicycle/pedestrian overpass/underpass). Actually, this is something you should explain/explore in more depth (especially costs, and who is paying for them – and when it will occur), to present an accurate picture.
The tight diamond is being paid for by the grant. The overpass is probably the one least likely to occur – the developer will contribute some to it and the city might seek grant funding, but it’s much more iffy. The feeling I get is that the interchange will happen, the extra light sequencing will happen, and the overpass is a more iffy.
In other words, I suggest that you examine ALL of the needed improvements, who is going to pay for them, and when it will occur. (Preferably, not based upon some “hope”.)
I consider the overpass a nice to have
None of the improvements are tied to the project, so while the discussion of how they will be paid for is interesting, it isn’t relevant for evaluating this project. As David pointed out, the traffic study is based on the current situation, not a theoretical future one.
Infrastructure improvements are the responsibility of the entire city, not just those folks who live in the neighborhood. If we are unable to find grants to provide the funding, we will need to pay for the projects from out of the City’s budget.
Mark: The chart that David posted already shows significant impacts on traffic (resulting directly from the proposal) under the current configuration.
18 seconds in one direction.
No, it shows exactly the opposite. Nice try, though.
Mark: “Nice try” in disputing my statement, as well.
In fact they determined the traffic impact to be less than significant.
Your chart shows that Richards/Olive changes from a “C” level, to a “D” level during the A.M. peak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service
Still haven’t explained exactly what that means, or whether or not there’s a cumulative impact (e.g., for each driver, at each impacted intersection).
Also wondering if the change from a “C” level to a “D” level includes your suggestion for a phased/dedicated pedestrian/bicycle signal, “in lieu of” the needed overpass.
Despite this being an article regarding traffic impacts, David has yet to explain what this “18 seconds” refers to.
18 seconds refers to the difference in the average delay between current conditions and current conditions plus projects.
Average delay is calculated based on the Highway Capacity Manual.
Here is a link if you want to see how average delay is derived: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08054/sect4.htm
Thanks, but holy, crap! (Excuse my language.)
Is there anything which briefly describes what it means in English? (For example, is that the “average” additional delay experienced by each driver? Or, is each driver delayed an additional 18 seconds – thereby having a “multiplier” effect on each of the drivers who follow?) (18 seconds + 18 seconds + 18 seconds . . .)
Also, how does this play into the additional delays created at other intersections, as referenced in the chart you posted? Is there anything which provides a bigger picture, for someone traveling through all of the impacted intersections? (For example, a range between “15 minutes extra”, vs. “honey – let’s abandon the car in the intersection”?)
Sure. See bolded text below.
I’m thinking that the “elevator urinals” that Alan referred to (below) might be desperately needed by drivers stuck in future traffic jams.
Don: Thanks, but this doesn’t answer the question regarding a “multiplier” effect, in reference to the 18 seconds.
Your reference generally describes the difference between level “C” and level “D”. Richards/Olive will change from Level C to Level D during mornings if the development is approved.
There isn’t a multiplier effect. The 18 seconds again is the difference between existing conditions and the existing conditions plus project.
David: I had been looking for something to confirm your statement in the EIR, but could not locate it. (In any case, that’s only at one of the impacted intersections.)
David: “The overpass is probably the one least likely to occur.”
David: “I consider the overpass a nice to have.”
And yet, that’s the single item that’s most needed. (If I recall correctly, Robb Davis made some comment a few months ago, stating that a bicycle/pedestrian overpass is (almost?) a requirement for approval. (And yet, who’s paying for it, and when it will occur apparently hasn’t been worked out.)
I see a high likelihood that this proposed development won’t be approved, without an overpass/underpass in place for pedestrians and bicyclists. (This would be a widespread concern, not just limited to folks concerned about UCD’s lack of adequate plans for on-campus housing.)
Let alone the “hoped-for” SACOG grant funding, for the interchange.
I disagree that it’s the item that’s most needed. The item most needed is the reconfiguration of the off-ramp – it’s antiquated and dangerous and needs to be done with or without additional development.
The second most needed thing – and easiest to do – is adding a ped/ bike signal to the intersection.
The signal change is the only one of these that is required mitigation for Lincoln40.
Having an overpass would be helpful as it would reconnect Olive to the downtown that Union Pacific divided, but we can manage without it.
Yeah – that “won’t” further impact the “worst intersection in town”.
I suspect that you’re in the minority, regarding that view. (I’m not sure of the best design/location for it, though. I seem to recall that there was more than one option.)
This has to be worked out (including who is paying for what, and timing), as does the possible grant money(s) – BEFORE considering any possible approvals.
If you read the traffic analysis current conditions plus the development impacts the intersection by about 18 seconds. That means without considering the phasing changes and the corridor updates. Given the magnitude of the housing crunch, it’s hard to foresee the council blocking this project under those conditions.
David: Not sure what the “18 seconds” refers to (each driver)? Are there cumulative impacts, as well?
Regardless, your chart shows impacts on other intersections, as well.
There’s also some safety concerns, when mixing bicycle/pedestrian/auto traffic.
Again, an overpass is needed, for both traffic impacts and safety. There’s no justification for not making this a condition of approval. (As I mentioned, I think even Robb Davis agrees with this concept – assuming I’m remembering his comment correctly.) (Of course, cost appears to be an issue.)
It’s the chart from the EIR. You can figure out what the exact metrics mean. My prediction remains that council will not block this project based on the overpass situation. My guess is that the developers will make a sizable contribution towards it, but the cost is out of the range of a mitigation measure for a project of this size.
You are absolutely correct, David… except for one thing (below)
One step further… CEQA recognizes that conditions may worsen due to a project… it also provides for weighing conditions/factors… if they can’t/or choose not to ‘mitigate’ (particularly due to cost/benefit), the CC can make “findings of over-riding considerations”…
UP didn’t ‘divide’ the downtown from either “downtown” or Olive (old US 40)… the RR pre-existed both… the RR pre-existed University Farm (aka UCD)… ‘enabled’ University Farm (Jerome Davis was thinking about this, apparently)… enabled a downtown (Terminal Hotel, etc.)… Lincoln Hwy came much later… as did I-80… the railroad alignment goes back to ~ late 1860’s. Have you heard of the transcontinental railroad?
Downtown was not historically ‘connected’ to Olive/ US 40, until US 40 was built… Davis citizens have repeatedly rejected opportunities to improve connections… SP and UP did not cause the basic problem.
History can be informative…
Fair enough. People were able to cross the tracks (illegally) and the fence has become a more effective barrier. That was my only point, but you are correct.
I assume that there’s no law which states that a developer’s impacts are automatically “excused”, if it’s costly to implement mitigations that are needed to help offset the impacts of a given proposal.
I also understand that this proposed development is relatively “high-end”, in terms of accommodations and probable rents.
Ultimately an EIR is a disclosure document and it’s up to the council to decide what to do about impacts.
Again putting words (by implication) in folk’s mouths…
By law, absent a development agreement, freely negotiated, the law (see Fifth Amendment to US constitution, as restated in CA Constitution), and supported by numerous (big time) lower court, appellate court, State Supreme Court, Federal Courts, including US Supreme Court, are limited to “nexus”. I.e., if there is a ‘pre-existing condition’, the developer is only responsible for their ‘increment’.
That said, if there is a pre-existing condition, the pre-existing development is responsible for the costs of that. No one that I’ve heard from, would excuse the developer from their fair share (I certainly didn’t say that, no matter how you may wish to “spin that”).
What I said, I said. I firmly stand by it.
But if the City weighs all the costs/benefits, and city goals, including housing, it decides to do an over-ride, they can legally so, but they have to make findings to that effect… you may not like that, but it is the LAW.
But to your basic question (although I believe you were setting a ‘verbal trap’), no, there is no law that a developer’s fair share of costs of mitigation are ‘excused’ by their inability to pay… when that happens, it usually means the proponent abandons/delays their project… but the CC still has a choice to balance what they perceive to be in the City’s best interest.
And that means they can decide to ‘excuse’ a portion or all of a developer’s obligations… at their own ‘peril’… I’d not recommend that course of action…
There is another portion of the Gov’t Code… doesn’t directly apply to this, but might be informative… let’s say a required improvement requires right-of-way from another, and they are unable to acquire it… then (subdivisions) the agency either has to relieve them of the requirement, or use eminent domain to acquire it, with all costs thereof coming from the developer.
I write this to inform the public as a whole. Not you specifically, Ron.
Sometimes, developers also voluntarily increase their contribution to offset their impacts, as was the case with the Hyatt proposal. (I realize that some who apparently weren’t even associated with that proposal “objected” to that outcome. That reaction seemed quite odd, to me.)
Yes and no. For decades there was an unofficial grade level crossing at the station that the railroad chose to ignore. It was not until the 80’s or 90’s (can’t remember when) that the crossing was posted (no trespassing), and even later that it was physically closed off. My parents lived at Slater’s Court in the 50’s and walked across the tracks heading into town or to classes. Eventually, the railroad put a stop to the activity rather than formalize the crossing.
Key word, Ron, is ‘voluntary’, which I completely alluded to earlier (via voluntary DA… perhaps you missed that direct ‘nuance’) [re: your 2:39 post]
As to LOS C/D… Don addressed that, correctly…
Existing city policy (two past general plans) not only finds that “D” is fully acceptable in areas already developed, but that “E” is acceptable in Core Area (and environs) and F is acceptable @ peak hour in the Core. No over-ride needed… city policy. From previous CC’s…
Yes, Mark, you are right about enforcement… I still travel across the tracks where there is no fence… the fact is it has always been illegal to enter RR r/w without express permission (except when other public r/w trumps their r/w… even then, they have the right and obligation to control crossings)… it is “trespass”, as they own the land in fee title… they chose to do the “don’t look, don’t enforce” thing until the number of ‘suicide by train’ and other incidents got their legal folk to press the issue. Potential liability exposure… not ‘meanness’…
I doubt that there’s any city policy which states that the council must approve a development that changes an intersection from “C” to “D”, and increases the time required to get through intersections (beyond “F”?).
In any case, perhaps it’s time to review the city’s policy, regarding this.
Basically true. Although UPRR didn’t decide to do so on its own, not until it was given a huge pot of taxpayer money to build “safety” fences along the corridor via Prop. 1B monies.
Alan is correct, and basically consistent with my 6:09 post…
DG, please stop saying “overpass”.
An overpass is such a bad idea, and UPRR saying it is the only option is a change of decades of policy and total Bulls**t. I’m OK with overpass/underpass as at least it leaves the option open, but the City and everyone caving to UPRR’s version of reality dooms a much better option: an underpass.
There are numerous reasons for this, which I won’t iterate right now. I will say, if anyone thinks it is physically impossible to build an underpass under UPRR tracks, see the recently opened tunnel in Santa Clara (link below), a beautiful and functional piece of bike/ped infrastructure, that goes under four tracks, not the two required in Davis.
http://www.vta.org/projects-and-programs/santa-clara-pedestrian-undercrossing
No but Davis goes for the quick, easy & ugly UPRR reality 35′ twin towers with elevator urinals or ultra-long ADA compliant twisty ramps, just because UPRR says so. Jesus H. Christ! Are we pansies?
Santa Clara gets it! Dixon gets it! Davis cowers to the big bad railroad.
Alan knows his train stuff… and I respect that…
What is not clear is what the right/way, UG utilities, drainage issues were in Santa Clara vs. Davis… I’d not preclude a UC, but given my knowledge of the Davis site, there are several oil/gas pipelines along the RR, and a City drainage line, and such an UC would require its own SW pump station.
That said, a grade separated X-ing is possible, but there are definite variables as to feasibility of either, or preference for either. It needs serious study… my ‘back of the envelope’ analysis favors the OC, but could be persuaded otherwise. R/w is the biggest factor… R/w for an OC a la Emeryville, is minimal. R/w for a UC or non-elevator OC is substantial.
Note the SC one has two very sharp right turns… fine for pedestrians, not so much for bikes, if you are riding one.
Will let the urinal part ‘pass’, but it’s as easy to pee in a tunnel as in an elevator… and happens ‘regularly’…
I was in Santa Clara on Saturday, and rode my bike down the ramps and the sharp turns. There are actually signs to “walk you bike”, which makes sense during rush hour, but on Saturday there was no conflict. The bike ramps were fine, just had to slow at the corners, which is actually a good thing to keep bike speeds down in a ped/bike facitlity.
Much easier to clean a tunnel. Have you been in a railroad crossover or BART urine elevator? It is not pleasant. There was no urine smell in the Santa Clara undercrossing; it’s pretty broad and well lit, so it does’t lend itself to urinating. I got on a BART elevator one time and there was a guy on there who stayed on when I got on. I was pretty sure he was riding up and down waiting to be alone on the elevator so he could pee.
Alan gets five gold stars for his useful criticism of UPRR’s commandments that attempt to force an overpass, but that VTA solution is garbage: Walk your bikes during rush hour? Seriously? Anyone who proposed that cars should be pushed during rush hour would be ridiculed, at best. This design seems fine for pedestrians and is ADA-compliant, but it’s nonsense for bikes: Proper investment would separate cyclists from slower users – it should be as safe and direct as the Dave Pelz crossing. If they don’t have money they should just admit that they’re creating extremely problematic garbage. If they had any sense of what actually works for bicycles, Sutter Health would not send their blue mascot whatever to this event. The City of Davis is planning similar infrastructure with their incompetent partner Mark Thomas & Co. for Cannery to F St., the bike/ped path that’s part of the tight diamond… and I think the planned connection from the Lincoln 40 Class I path (bike path) to Pole Line that’s somehow completely ignored in this discussion.
(This reminds me of how VTA guided the development of bikeshare in the Bay Area and that now, about seven years later, they have to live with what’s now a last – not latest – generation bike share solution that still ignores the extremely dynamic topography and bicycle travel distances of the entire area, and continues with its counter-productive age-ist crap (min. 18 years old to use – just like with the current soft launch/pilot of the SACOG bike share system in Sac and W. Sac) and a new title sponsor, Ford, who even admits they’re not in it for cycling… but to collect data on how people travel for use in their fake demand responsive acquisition, Chariot).
Some apparently don’t even believe that an overpass (with urinal towers) is needed, let alone a tunnel (which does seem preferable, assuming the challenges that Howard mentions can be overcome).
(Howard: Elevator towers provide more “privacy”.)
Perhaps… but does not apply as to the project at hand… does the term “ex post facto” mean anything to you? Applies to adopted City policies, as well as to ‘laws’… you can’t change the rules in the middle of an event… as much as you might wish…
Howard: There’s nothing requiring the city to approve the proposal. There are legitimate concerns regarding impacts and financing needed infrastructure, among other things.
For once… a direct, true statement of fact. Congrats!
I agree completely with the quote!
But, there is a “but”… to the extent, if any, that the project complies with standards existing at the time the ‘application was deemed complete’, the CC should make “findings” as to why they denied it… but they are free to deny it… in any event… this is not a ‘ministerial’ application… those are very different…
Howard: Even your “compliments” to me have a nasty edge. But, rather than letting this become personal, let’s just leave it as is.
Just saw your second post. Is the site zoned for this type of complex?
As do yours… je d’accord…
Read the DEIR. And staff report, as to GP designation and other zoning…
Davis cowers to UCD, and puts UCD’s needs above its own. That’s why some are (once again) pushing so hard for this development, despite all of the unresolved concerns (including basic questions regarding funding for needed infrastructure, to partially offset the impacts it would bring).
Regardless of the bicycle/pedestrian overpass, wondering if there’s any plans to address the LTS 3/4 route on Olive, to the proposed development.
Pretty sure that not all students are “strong and fearless” (and have significant experience with bicycles). Some not even from this country, and therefore not familiar with conditions here. (You know – the ones that can afford $42K in tuition, as well as proposed luxury apartment complexes.)
(Actually, at least a few local bicyclists are “inappropriately” fearless. You read about the results, sometimes.)
Fear is a good thing when riding a bike. It is also known as sanity/reality.
Overall, it appears that the planned “debunking” of Eileen’s comments have hit another snag or two. But, never fear – I understand they’re not giving up yet.
According to some (and to quote a famous movie), “we don’t need no stinkin’ overpass (or tunnel)”.
(Woops – to “paraphrase” a famous movie line.)
When Lexington was put in, I testified before the council that Lexington should put up a significant amount of money towards a bike/ped connection to the station, as students would otherwise cross the tracks at non-crossing points to reach downtown. The Council ignored this.
I don’t believe Lincoln 40 should have to shoulder the whole bill for a connection, but a significant contribution. The problem is, because the City never required other developments to contribute, how do you get a connection built with partial funding from one development. If the City doesn’t have a plan, the money will just sit in an account gaining interest, and nothing will actually happen.
That is unacceptable. The City needs an actual plan to get the connection built, leveraging the developer’s contribution. Without a real plan that can actually get it built, once the site is approved, there will be no more momentum, and the connection will languish another couple of decades.
I held great hope in the Richards Gateway, as the second ped/bike tunnel on the east side of the road tunnel would have cut out the added many minutes and danger of double crossing Richards and then 1st, taking bike/peds from Olive to loop around the Boyscout Cabin to 1st and F. I was actually willing to say that is good enough, a crossing at the station wasn’t needed. But UPRR threw the pooch on that one, too, declaring that the tunnel had to be dug much deeper than the one on the other side, pooching the design and adding expense.
Now somehow BNSF railway is ok with the tunneling method of building a bridge in place and then excavating after the bridge is stabilized in place. UPRR somehow doesn’t care to adhere to the same laws of physics. Because they don’t have to.