So far 316 (as of press time) have signed a petition to ask the city of Davis to restore Mace Boulevard to two lanes in both directions. (The petition on Change.org is located here.)
According to Brandon Hurley who has sponsored the Change.org petition, “The ‘Traffic Calming’ project on Mace Boulevard was unnecessary, was not properly presented to the residents of South Davis (especially the current residents), was obsolete and ill-conceived when the plan was completed in 2013, and since its installation has created massive congestion, dangerous traffic issues, more safety issues for the bicyclists and pedestrians it was purported to protect, rampant road rage, and in short has seriously disrupted the lives of all Davis residents and especially South Davis residents, as demonstrated by our daily experiences.
“Despite city planners’ insistence to the contrary, the changes to Mace have resulted in a situation where emergency vehicles will be unable to access neighborhoods and evacuations will be impossible to carry out,” the petition continues.
Hurley notes: “In some neighborhoods, the ‘improvements’ have created issues for ADA access to vehicles, another safety concern.”
He adds: “We are aware that there are other factors affecting the congestion, such as greatly increased commute traffic by people who are working in the Bay Area and Santa Rosa and now living in Sacramento. WAZE is also a factor, but these factors cannot be used to excuse the City of Davis from fixing the Mace problem, which is under the City’s control and which has become critical.
“While we understand that it may be difficult for the City government to acknowledge errors in planning and implementing this ‘traffic calming’ measure, it is vital that the errors be remedied effectively and immediately, regardless of additional costs, for the well-being and safety of all Davis residents,” he writes. “South Davis residents cannot be expected to let their children’s 
safety be compromised and their neighborhoods be ruined to save the City face and money.
“We require that Mace Boulevard be immediately restored to two lanes of traffic in both directions, with the creation of safe marked bike lanes adjacent to traffic lanes, and that right turn lanes be restored. Residents of South Davis must be included in deciding how this is to be accomplished. We want to have input into the plans and we want to see and concur with any and all plans prior to their build-out,” the petition continues.
It concludes: “We further request that planning this redesign should not be used as an excuse to delay the prompt return to two traffic lanes both ways. Further, residents of South Davis will not accept cosmetic changes and signage as a substitute for restoration of two traffic lanes. We recognize that this restoration will take effort and commitment from our elected city officials and we thank you in advance for making Mace Boulevard again safe and efficient for all of us.”
The petition follows several months of complaints and several community meetings over the past few months.
On Thursday, Mayor Brett Lee explained to residents that “this is an urgent matter” and he promised, “We are going to transition rapidly into finding solutions because this is not acceptable and we need to find a way to fix it.”
Mayor Lee told the residents, “I understand there is a healthy level of skepticism out there given the project and given the current conditions and that’s totally understandable, but we’re committed to improve this and to fix this.”
He added, “Our goal is to have it be better than the way it was. … We honestly believe that we can do that.”
Both Mayor Lee and Councilmember Lucas Frerichs promised on Thursday to make adjustments and changes in the next couple of weeks and months. What those changes would entail remain a bit murky.
Mayor Lee acknowledged that the situation is not acceptable and that it will have some cost to fix it. He further acknowledged that “we don’t have a choice” and “we can’t have Davis be like this.”
According to reports, there were at least 100 people in attendance of the meeting on Thursday night. The problems that were listed, residents claim, happened almost immediately when the project – which began in 2013 as a $3 million infrastructure project as part of a SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) grant to pay for resurfacing Mace – finally got underway last fall.
The project has several different components – eliminating the right turn pockets at Mace and Cowell, creating bike lanes that are protected along Mace, and reducing Mace from four traffic lanes down to two lanes for cars.
Part of the hope was to make bike and pedestrian travel to Pioneer Elementary safer for school children to walk and bike to school – with concerns at the time being the lack of protected bicycle lanes along Mace, in addition to high rates of vehicle speed.
Now residents are concerned with traffic being at a standstill, blocking access to emergency vehicles like fire and ambulance, long delays to get from El Macero to the freeway – and, ironically enough, more concerns about collisions and allowing children to bike and walk to school.
Residents have been consistently complaining about the reduced quality of life for the residents of South Davis.
The city plans to have having another meeting on April 11 at 6 pm. That will be held at the South Davis Fire Station. There would be a second meeting scheduled for May 15 – the hope is that at that time city staff would be able to outline a solution.
However, Brett Lee said that while he is hoping improvements would begin prior to the May 15 meeting, “some solutions will take a little bit longer.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The traffic on Covell Blvd. has been really difficult for almost a year due to the construction on the Covell Blvd overpass and L street- closing L Street and reducing the overpass to one lane. I don’t see petitions to reverse this or much bellyaching at all. The traffic on 8th and 5th and B is super slow every day. Again, no calls to return 5th to 4 lanes. What’s with these South Davis people?
Sharla, thae difference between the Covell and L project and the Mace project is that the lane reduction due to construction of the overpass improvements is temporary. Once the construction is completed Covell will return to two vehicle lanes each direction plus the enhanced and protected bike/ped lane. In the case of the Mace project, what was originally five vehicle lanes plus two bike/ped lanes will permanently become three vehicle lanes plus four bike/ped lanes.
Further, the Covell overpass had extensive public hearings, several at the Council level, so there was plenty of discussion/exposure/debate of the design alternatives, with a very clear disclosure of staff’s objective for the project. In the case of the Mace project the public meetings were quietly held over 5 years ago. The objectives of the project were not discussed/exposed/debated at even 5% of the level that the objectives of the Covell-L project were.
— The objective to convert Mace from an arterial to a neighborhood street was never discussed.
— The objective to reduce the customary speed of vehicle traffic on Mace from 40 MPH to below 25 MPH was never discussed.
— The plan to exclude the County portion of the Mace right of way was never discussed (with either “these South Davis people” or the County Supervisor or the County Public Works staff).
— The plan to exclude the first 15 feet of westernmost portion of the right of way in the City was never discussed.
— The plan to go from two bike/ped lanes in the existing design to four bike/ped lanes was never clearly discussed at any time in the past five years.
— The plan to go from five vehicle lanes (four thru lanes and one protected turn lane at the traffic lights) in the existing design to three vehicle lanes (two thru lanes and one protected turn lane at the traffic lights) was never clearly discussed at any time in the past five years.
— The last public discussion of the design prior to the commencement of construction was prior to 2013
— No one who lives east of Mace ever received a notice from the City about the project. No notices were sent to anyone who lives in the County, and the owner of the commercial building on the southeast corner of the Mace-Cowell intersection, which is in the City, stated in the January Fire House meeting that he did not receive any notice about the project.
— The County was not given any notice by the City, so the County did not have any opportunity to send County residents notices.
— The Acting Fire Chief at the January meeting at the Fire Station told the people in attendance that he had not been involved in the planning of the project. He reported to the 100+ people in attendance that any planning was before his time and that the background briefing that he received when he arrived in Davis to assume Fire Chief duties.
— It is reported that no one who lives off of Cowell east or west of Mace was notified.
So there are a myriad of reasons why the Covell-L project and the Mace-Cowell project are apples and oranges.
I’m not familiar with any construction at 8th and B. I’ll drive over there all the way along 8th today to see what is being done. To the best of my knowledge the 5th Street project did not change the traffic lanes at 5th and B, but please disabuse me of that recollection if my memory is faulty.
So it seems to rest on notification.
I knew changes were in the works.
I used to ride my bike on the roads south of town and down Mace until it became unsafe due to the high speed of the cars going through there. I was part of a discussion of the lack of a safe route for the kids from the migrant housing to access town, which prevented them from participating in sports and other after school activities. I’ve personally witnessed multiple car accidents at the Mace and Chiles intersection.
I don’t think reversing direction and pulling it out is a valid solution and just restoring 4 lanes is an unimaginative solution to the problem of a County road and freeway access surrounded by the city.
Was this the actual rationale for this project?
Was this reviewed by the relevant traffic safety commissions back then?
Don, regarding your first question, the original documents that were presented in the only public meetings held for the project (back before 2013) have not been produced as yet, so there is no true verified knowledge of what the project rationale was. However, since the grant application was submitted under the Safe Streets to Schools program (a Federal initiative), it is safe to believe that “making bike and pedestrian travel to Pioneer Elementary safer for school children” was indeed one of the core rationales for the project.
In the December 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan document the Appendix (on page 22 of 35 ) lists the following:
Regarding your second question, the Bicycling, Transportation & Street Safety Commission (BTSSC) was established in 2014. Prior to 2014 the City had a Bicycle Advisory Commission, which would have reviewed/discussed the fact that the Davis Bike Loop had a large incomplete section on its eastern end, but probably nothing about reconfiguration of vehicle travel lanes on Mace. The City also had a Safety and Parking Advisory Commission, which to the best of my memory focused more on issues related to the Central Core of Davis, and quite possibly did not consider the Mace project meetings with the public or the design of this project.
A thorough search of the City website shows that the project appeared twice on the BTSSC Long Range Calendar as a future item in 2014, but never actually made it to an actual agenda.
Actually some of the plans were presented on April 9, 2015 for review and feedback by the BTSSC
Minutes under 7 L: http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Bicycling-Transportation-Street-Safety-Commission/General-Documents/Minutes/BTSSC-MIN-2015-0409.pdf
Good get David. That information did not come up in any of the 10 pages of search results on the City website when I searched for “Mace Blvd” or “Mace Boulevard”
Here is the pertinent information from that 4/9/15 BTSSC packet
The minutes of that meeting report the following
Also went to BTSSC on July 12, 2016
It appears that it was presented to the BTSSC at their July 14 2016 meeting but they did not take any action on it.
https://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=12589
Interesting. Again the City website did not return a “hit” for that document with the search expression “Mace Blvd” or “Mace Blvd Improvements” both of which appear prominently in the Staff Report for that item. Using transportation industry acronyms from the report, it doesn’t come up with the expression STIP, but does come up with the expression RRFB.
That is a noticing issue that affects the City globally … the lack of basic functionality of the City website. Add that to the other aforementioned noticing issues.
Further, those two staff reports and related minutes clearly show no involvement of Yolo County in either noticing, participation, or public input. It is reminiscent to me of the stealth campaign that was an important aspect leading up to the Mace 391 consent calendar debacle lo these many years ago.
A similar lack of collaboration has been evident in the recent (February 5th) controversial Astound Contract item (and process) that led to it appearing on the Consent Calendar springing fully armed like Athena from the head of Zeus.
Do you detect a pattern David?
Having now watched the city at work for nearly 15 years, I would say they are better than they were, not as good as they need to be.
Who designed this SACOG-funded “improvement”, and do they bear any responsibility for it? Aren’t there professional engineers, who design such projects?
If there was an EIR done, did it turn out that the impact was under-estimated? If so, who certified the EIR?
One of the key questions I would ask before spending more money is to determine how much of the problem is engineering – there is clearly some problems like lack of right hand turn lanes, but how much is simply traffic patterns? I ask this because I know long before the construction here, Thursdays and Fridays were problematic and they are problematic going in directions that should be unimpacted by structural changes.
Maybe so, but your response had nothing to do with my questions.
Ron and David, it is my understanding that the engineering that eliminated the free right turn lanes is in compliance with and a result of the requirements of the Federal Safe Routes to Schools and Complete Streets programs, under which the funding applications for this project were submitted. I am comfortable (but do not know for certain) that the engineering simply “followed the rules.”
Said another way, the elimination of the free right turn lanes was a requirement of the Federal rules of the funding source of the project rather than the engineering of the project.
One of the key questions I would ask is why did The Vanguard avoid acknowledging this was a problem just two months ago?
-“Traffic Complaints about Construction on Mace Seem a Bit Overblown”
-“It probably slows down the north-south traffic on Mace by a little bit, but not much. It really functions quite well. And I understand, they are probably two months behind where they said they would be – but it is really not a big deal.”
-“I don’t really understand these complaints. The travel time for the most part is only marginally impacted – and perhaps not by that much.”
-“People have to be a bit more tolerant about traffic delays sometimes.”
[The Vanguard, 1/27/2019]
It sounds like there needs to be a special lane for cars turning right to go down Chiles to get on I-8 (which now backs up due to metering lights there) and backed up by the metering lights to get on I-80 at Mace – a freeway only lane. Maybe the lights could be adjusted to allow more cars to go through the intersection at a time and a 4th or 5th lane on the other side of Chiles to hold the waiting cars.
Sharla, a fourth lane eastbound on I-80 like the one you describe would need to be “protected” with a barrier between it and the right most eastbound travel lane on I-80. That kind of protected lane can be seen on eastbound I-80 at the intersection with I-5. There is plenty of room in the I-80 right of way to accommodate that protected lane. In such a configuration the metering traffic signal would be moved from its current location to the easternmost end of the “protected” area of the lane.
Good idea. Getting CalTrans to agree to it might be challenging, but including it as a component of the I-80 Richards Blvd Interchange Improvements project might grease the skids on making it happen. In that case, the project would cover three Davis Interchanges on I-80, Richards (both directions), Olive (westbound), and Mace (eastbound).
By the way, those large rocks (e.g., as seen in the photo) are butt-ugly, and difficult to safely walk across (if needed). That’s the best that can be done? (Perhaps they were designed to discourage people from walking on them?)
It would be helpful to know more about the complete process that led to this point. Something that would address the complete funding, design, and approval process, including responsibilities.
That would include whether or not an EIR was done, if the resulting impacts were under-estimated, who certified it, and how this SACOG-funded project was ultimately allowed to proceed.
Such as analysis might also address the points that Matt made, in his 8:34 a.m. post, above.
No, I’m not planning to undertake this myself. Perhaps it is something that an author of a blog might consider.
If rocks were butts . . .
Perhaps Teichert had a bunch of large rocks they needed to get rid of.
Those rocks/concrete probably contribute to a “heat island” effect, as well.
Fortunately, they appear to be cemented-in quite well, lest they be used in any road-rage incidents (e.g., – on hot summer days, stuck in traffic). 😉
Just some background info. Info on the “Mace Blvd Complete Street project” can be found on the City’s website by searching by “CIP 8257.” The 27-page set of plans were drawn 11-30-2016. The City issued a construction bid on 10-10-2017, with a submittal deadline of 11-2-2017. The engineer’s construction cost estimate was $2.4 million. This is a grant-funded project. It is Federal Project No. STPL 5238(061), with the federal grant money funneled through SACOG. The project also appears on the City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) addendum reviewed by City Council on 12-14-2017. Information on the funding source for this project is below.
Given that much of the project has been federally funded, this leads to the question as to the funding source for potentially reversing the construction completed thus far, and whether SACOG and/or the federal government would want the money returned. In any case, common sense would seem to dictate that if traffic lanes are reduced from 4 or 5 lanes to 2 lanes, the result will be congestion.
Such “Complete Street” projects have been promoted by the federal government and an organization known as Smart Growth America,” which defines Complete Streets as follows:
Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations.
Creating Complete Streets means transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads. By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists—making your town a better place to live.
Oh, snap! That sounds familiar! (Think “high-speed rail”, and the actions taken by Trump to try to force California to return funds for that.)
The story just keeps getting “better-and-better”! We’ve got to come up with a “name” for this fiasco. (An article on the other blog referred to the “Mace Mess”, which sounds about right.)
How about the “Maaaaaaeeeessssssss”
Good information Greg. Thanks for sharing it.
It’s actually five to three, and NO, common sense is wrong about this, as we went over-and-over on Fifth Street.
Having said that, any design that reduces lanes does not a solution make. This is clearly a Maaaeeeessss that is WAY over-designed.
I’m all for complete streets, but they should be done with simplicity in mind, not to design a complex, concrete maze / art project that only a cement company could love.
I agree with much of what ALan says here, but the problem would seem to be the lack of anticipation that Mace would become a route for Waze to re-route people. Given the change in the street, I wonder if that forces Waze to change as well and again, I would like to know how much of the problem that that solves.
And how many other problems that creates, such as rerouting traffic onto other streets, keeping it on I-80, and the impact on local ramps and frontage roads, to I-80.
Not to mention other apps, which might do the same thing.
And then, there’s MRIC, looming in the background . . .
In any case, it seems unlikely that complex traffic engineering problems are going to be resolved on a blog. I’m still wondering if an EIR was done for this project, and whether or not it understated the impact. Perhaps EIRs are not adequately anticipating the impacts of technology, or cumulative impacts.
“In any case, it seems unlikely that complex traffic engineering problems are going to be resolved on a blog.”
This issue arose because community members on a variety of places, including NextDoor and elsewhere raised this point. They oint of asking questions and discussing it is not that you’re going to “solve” or “resolve” problems, but rather that the discussion creates the pressure on the city to address them.
BTW, what is a blog and why is are you considering this a blog? You keep referring to as such, but it doesn’t fit the definition as I understand it.
Did Waze exist when this design was created? Are you complaining that the Staff was unable to predict the future?
Waze and Google Maps collect real-time data from users in order to predict the best route. If this location backs up sufficiently, it will no longer be recommended as the route of choice. One problem, however, is that if I80 E is a parking lot between Dixon and Davis, then driving the backroads at 60mph before being stuck in a 15′ jam on Mace may still be the faster route.
My comment was meant to be a little tongue in cheek
Referencing Greg Rowe’s comment above, it sounds like the city might have to pay back SACOG first, in order to “address” the problem. In addition to the costs of actually addressing the problem.
How about this? The Vanguard is a “business”, whose primary operation depends upon a blog which accompanies the politically-motivated articles.
Ron, the City wouldn’t have to pay back SACOG. They would have to pay back the Federal Government. SACOG is only the conduit for the funds. The Feds are the funding agency/source.
Matt: Thanks, but perhaps it doesn’t make much difference “who” the city might have to write the check to. Regardless, it seemed that Greg indicated that SACOG might have some influence regarding this possibility:
It matters if you want to be accurate rather than inaccurate.
Actually, I would think that the city would be officially guided, regarding the specific recipient of the check. And, would (hopefully) not depend upon guidance issued on a blog.
Regardless, it seems like an extremely important “first step”, to determine if the funds would have to be paid back.
It is truly an excellent question. Thanks to Greg for bringing it up.
Going back to the original design as residents want is ludicrous. The current design is ludicrous. It’s like the only planning that was done was derived from large campaign contributions from Teichert to all the politicians on the SACOG board, with only goal to be “pour, baby pour!”. Driving a car through there is like being a pinball in a concrete pinball machine.
Solution? Maybe put a roof on it (as per TE’s suggestion for I-80).
I don’t want to pay a huge amount of money to return to an original bad design. I went to the meetings on the original proposal. The comments/complaints at the time were: speeding traffic, unsafe bike passage across Mace, bad intersection with Montgomery, too much traffic congestion from motorists bypassing I-80, yada, yada.
People have been complaining non-stop in South Davis since the construction started! How can anyone possibly know how things will flow before the work is even completed? Of course, it’s congested now (although honestly, even that is a bit of a joke) – it’s under construction. I went to the public on the new design – the fire chief specifically said no problems were anticipated. We (the rest of the us who are willing to try it for a while) should not have to pay for a re-design/re-improvement. Let the people complaining pay for it.
I understand that studying, projecting and disclosing how a project will impact traffic is a primary purpose of an EIR, which is (already) often a source of contention and dispute.
Seems like such projections are going to be much less reliable, in the presence of new traffic-altering technologies available through cellphones. Perhaps a game changer, regarding EIRs for future projects and developments.
What you say is true – projections are less reliable during times of change. But I’m missing the so what of it.
Craig: I’ve already addressed the “so what” of it, regarding contention and disputes (e.g., potential legal challenges which can impact projects and developments). Might also impact the initial approval process.
Davis is (already) “familiar” with contention and disputes regarding proposals – as I believe you’ve already witnessed and understand. 😉
If you had addressed it, I wouldn’t have asked. You’re still not. You can only create the best estimate with the available data. What you’ve described simply widens the error term. It doesn’t fundamentally change anything.
Craig: I would probably defer to an attorney, regarding whether or not reduced reliability creates additional opportunity for disputes/challenges. Not to mention the probability of increased disputes when proposals are first considered.
First of all, it’s not reliability you’re talking about, it’s uncertainty.
Craig: I believe you’re grasping at straws, in regard to arguments which haven’t even been developed.
Deb, thank you for the thoughtful contribution. It appears that you have a piece of information that no one else has access to … information about those original meetings. I have sent you an e-mail as follow-up to your comment.
Here’s some more info. The City issued a request for construction bids on 10-10-2017, with a submittal deadline of 11-2-2017. That means that sometime after that date the City Council agenda would have had an item to approve the lowest qualified bid, probably on the consent agenda. Thus far I have not yet found a way to search on the City website for Council agenda items, so it may take awhile to find out when the Council approved the construction project.
The City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annual report issued 7-13-2017 noted on page 11 that this project (#8257) had an engineer’s estimated cost of $2,897,862. (As a general rule, public agencies must produce an engineer’s cost estimate before bids can be solicited. The estimate is usually produced by the public entity’s engineering staff or in some cases by a consultant. If the actual bids received are significantly greater than the engineer’s estimate, a reconciliation process is usually initiated.)
This project is an example of the downside of receiving federal grants for construction projects. As noted previously, this grant was issued by the federal gov’t through its “Complete Streets” program. In accepting such a grant, the City was to a large extent obligated to design and build the project in accordance with guidelines established by the feds. In other words, there were strings attached that could have largely limited the City’s flexibility in designing the project. I am fully aware of this aspect of grant-funded projects because during my career I worked 3 years for a regional council of governments similar to SACOG. That agency administered many infrastructure projects (roads, sewers, etc.) that were funded by federal grants.
And the last 13 years of my career was as senior environmental planner for the Sac County Dept of Airports. Many airport projects are partially funded by FAA grants, but the project must be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA requirements. (Such projects were limited to those that improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the “national aerospace system,” i.e., things like runways and taxiways. The $ could generally not be used for things like passenger terminals.)
Some have asked whether an EIR was done for this project. I am guessing it was not required because many projects are “categorically excluded” from CEQA as per the CEQA Guidelines promulgated by the State’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). These include many transportation improvement projects that do not entail disturbance of the natural environment. During my 13 years implementing capital improvement projects at 4 airports, many of those projects were categorically exempt from CEQA and likewise had Categorical Exclusions pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City Council staff report recommending approval of the construction project probably indicated whether this particular project was categorically exempt as per the CEQA Guidelines.
Just want to add a clarification to my post of 9:14 PM. I mixed CEQA and NEPA terms. Projects that do not require CEQA analysis are Categorically Exempt. Projects that do not require analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are termed Categorical Exclusions. Same concept but slightly different terminology. Sorry for any confusion.
Well, Don is faster than me. I just found the Dec 5, 2018 staff report. The feds are providing $2,104,000 of the project cost. The City is providing $964,328 from the general fund and the road impact fee fund. With the feds providing the vast bulk of the money, along with that comes the necessity of designing and constructing the project in accordance with goals and guidelines promulgated by the feds. It could very well be that those aspects of the project that many local residents find most objectionable are in fact items over which the City has little control. Like I said above, the down side of funding projects with federal money is adhering to federal requirements. It’s sort of like “be careful what you wish for.”
Truer words were never spoken. Beware federal funds, unless you like strings, in this case in the form of many tons of concrete and butt-ugly rocks.