A lot of blame got thrown the way of the city on reconfiguring Mace Boulevard, but as I pointed out in the spring, traffic headed east and south on Covell onto Mace from Harper was backed up practically to the Junior High on Thursdays and Fridays, and there is no earthly way you can blame that on the reconfiguration of Mace far to the south.
This Friday may have been the worst I have seen – and I was stuck right in the middle of it. The problem I had was getting from downtown to Target to Montgomery, to Davis Diamonds and then somehow home in South Davis on the very eastern part of Cowell.
What would normally take maybe 10 minutes took over half an hour.
First I made the mistake of trying to get to Target, which is normally not a problem on a Friday afternoon. But by four, the traffic backed up from Mace all the way onto Second Street basically to the Frontier Fertilizer site. Fortunately for me, the road splits into two lanes shortly thereafter and the left lane was clear (for once people didn’t try to get into the left lane and merge back – one of my suggestions to the city is to make that move impossible during times of high traffic).
I then had to get to Montgomery to pick up two of the kids. To avoid the Mace congestion, I drove back on Second Street to get to Fifth Street, and attempted to make a left onto Pole Line and go over the overpass. Normally a quick jog. But the traffic was ridiculous.
It took five light cycles to make the left turn onto Pole Line.
Then the overpass was completely congested and it took another ten minutes to get over the overpass. I got to the school, and then dropped my daughter off at Davis Diamonds.
Traffic was fine again until I hit Cowell, right around the spot where Daniel Marsh killed his two victims (sorry that’s how I remember that spot). Normally even in the afternoon, Cowell has been 
clear, even if it is backed up on Mace – but not on Friday.
It took another ten minutes to go through intersection – and it would have been far worse to go left rather than straight.
For all of the complaints about the reconfiguration of Mace, the reality is that Mace isn’t the problem. The problem is I-80.
Now everyone has been blaming the Waze app, which redirects traffic starting about Dixon to bypass freeway congestion by going the back county roads – which directs people back to the freeway by making a left on Mace and reentering the freeway.
In so doing, the app is inadvertently adding to the congestion and creating a cascading effect across the town in Davis.
The app is probably an easy culprit, but considering Davis has a large volume of people who commute in and out of the city each day, the culprit may also just be that I-80 is bad and the volume of traffic trying to get out of Davis is sufficient to cause backups. I make this point because it is not clear that we have sufficiently studied the issue.
What I do know is that there are two primary problem points that originate at I-80 that are ultimately to blame. The first congestion point is at UC Davis. Whoever designed I-80 frankly needs to be tarred and feathered because, for reasons that make no sense, I-80 widens to six lanes just before Davis and then drops back to three.
The result of that is traffic, starting perhaps as early as 2 pm even on a weekday, will back up as the lanes reduce. That problem is what is leading apps like Waze to attempt to divert traffic elsewhere.
The second problem is at the causeway. At first glance, you have to ask yourself why traffic would back up so much at the causeway – after all, the lanes do not further reduce. During peak hours, you are getting a volume of traffic coming on at Mace but another volume of traffic getting on down the road at East Chiles. The result is that more traffic is funneled onto the road at those two points, creating another slowdown.
Part of this is actually part of the same system. If you divert traffic at Dixon off the freeway, that traffic is then getting back on the freeway at Mace or East Chiles, creating the second bottleneck.
I know a lot of people see the solution as somehow convincing Waze not to redirect traffic through Davis or perhaps find a way to eliminate the throughway from the county road to Davis – the real solution in the long term is going to be the Caltrans project to fix the I-80 corridor and, while they are apparently looking at widening the causeway, figuring out a better way to deal with the bottleneck at UC Davis might be the more advantageous move.
Until that gets fixed, we are going to have to get used to traffic volumes especially on Thursday and Friday from about 4 to 6 pm or so.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks, this is an important reminder for people to look at the bigger picture. Hopefully folks have this in mind when they write to the Council or come to the next meeting about Mace this Thursday.
Unfortunately, long-term fixes for Bay-to-Sac-and-Beyond capacity focused on rail are decades ahead, some years also for managed lanes that would allow a fast bus trip or to encourage carpooling, fellow Commissioners and I were split on my suggestion for adding a bus and new P&R on the south side of I-80 at Mace, too late in town to get any leverage with for a P&R integrated with the soon-coming 80-Richards modifications, some kind of agricultural-only road bypassing El Macero to its south is also years away, no one talks about carpooling in any discussion about Mace, not everyone can work at home, Capitol Corridor is increasing in popularity but ultimately limited by Union Pacific… if we’re out of solutions, it seems fair to ask if the City can effectively implement a toll for people who use Waze and similar apps. – Todd Edelman, member of the Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission (speaking on my own behalf.)
From: “Barbara Archer” <BArcher@cityofdavis.org>
Subject: Mace Blvd Modifications Update – October 9, 2019
Date: October 9, 2019 at 12:42:24 PM PDT
To: “Barbara Archer” <BArcher@cityofdavis.org>
City staff met with consultants from Fehr and Peers to review a variety of design options, including: changed/added signalization; lane additions; and/or the movement of lanes, paths, sidewalks and medians to improve bicycle/pedestrian access. A particular focus of the design options are to improve travel times for local motor vehicle traffic during peak congestion and do it in a way that discourages I-80 bypass traffic. City staff will also be arranging for another meeting with Cal Trans to go over options for improving I-80 traffic flow that would help discourage drivers from using Mace Blvd.
An open community meeting to go over design options with the public is scheduled for Thursday, October 24, at Pioneer Elementary School (5215 Hamel St, Davis, CA 95618) starting at 6:30 p.m. The city council is tentatively scheduled to review design options in early December.
The City will continue to communicate progress and construction dates via email and social media.
Project information is available on the project website: https://cityofdavis.org/maceblvd
Barbara Archer
Communications and Customer Service Manager
(office) 530-747-5884
(mobile) 530-400-3418
City of Davis
City Manager’s Office
23 Russell Blvd, Suite 1, Davis, CA 95616
Thank you for the PSA, Matt…
Perhaps someone can explain how ARC (and its 4,340 parking spaces) will impact this problem.
I’m assuming that the interaction with WAZE (or the “Mace Mess”) is not addressed in the EIR (for ARC).
I think that’s why we have a traffic study underway. It will probably have a marginal impact on delays during peak hours at build out. The question is what will mitigation look like.
You’re stating that the ARC developers have already embarked on a new traffic study?
Believe that’s what I heard last week Or two weeks ago, council meeting. The city manager said they would be evaluating whether the change of conditions necessitated a revision to the EIR.
Maybe the Vanguard will confirm whether or not that’s true.
Difficult to believe that a freeway-oriented development with 4,340 parking spaces (which will also accommodate workplace commuters) would not have a significant impact during peak hours.
Also seems pretty challenging to ensure that the traffic study includes impacts from WAZE and the “Mace Mess”.
I just saw the rest of your comment, as you were apparently editing it. It’s almost laughable to suggest that conditions haven’t changed. Really? That’s what this article is about – in the SAME AREA where ARC would be located!
I’m actually laughing as I write this!
It’s becoming too easy to point out the obvious.
But, now that I look at your complete comment more closely, I see that the developers have apparently NOT, in fact, embarked upon a new traffic study.
Ron – I don’t understand why you don’t just look at the traffic study for the previous EIR. The circumstances may have changed a bit since the EIR, but if anything the impact of the project with internal housing will be slightly less.
Ron, I will share my personal opinion. ARC will have virtually no impact on the afternoon traffic problems on the portion of northbound Mace that is south of I-80. ARC will also have virtually no impact on the afternoon traffic problems the article describes on Cowell Blvd on either side of Mace. ARC will also have virtually no impact on the traffic problems the article describes on the Pole Line Road overpass.
Where ARC will definitely have an impact is on the portion of Mace that is north of I-80, as well as on Second Street.
Where ARC might have an impact is on I-80 itself, especially on the size and configuration of the on-ramps at the mace exit.
What those impacts are likely to be is unknown at present. It is possible that southbound Mace from Harper Junior High School to Alhambra, which is a single lane currently could become two lanes. Northbound Mace could become two lanes as well. Southbound Mace from Alhambra to the crest of the overpass could also end up with additional lanes. We simply do not know at this time.
What we do know (in my personal opinion) is that the impact of ARC is dwarfed by the impact of any changes that might be made by CalTrans to the eastbound I-80 on-ramps at the Mace exit, which would relocate the current queuing from the Davis surface streets to those extended on-ramps.
I largely agree with Matt but we will see
Matt: You’ll forgive me if I’d rather wait and see what updated traffic studies show, before arriving at any conclusions on a blog.
Ron, you say above that you would rather wait before arriving at any conclusions, but then you follow your above comment with your two comments below where you jump to conclusions left, right and all over the place. Which way do you want it, with conclusions or without? With shared experience or without?
I do have a question, regarding this conclusion by Matt.
Are you suggesting that the ramps that *might* be built would be large enough to accommodate all of the “queuing” that’s occurring, and will occur as a result of ARC and increased traffic in general?
What is your basis for those conclusion, which appears to support all of your other conclusions? And, how would increased traffic on I-80 itself impact that “queuing”?
As a “bonus” question, are you suggesting that a development should be considered for approval based upon what CalTrans might do in the future?
And, would a traffic study be based upon what CalTrans might do, as well?
Ron asks, “Are you suggesting that the ramps that *might* be built would be large enough to accommodate all of the “queuing” that’s occurring”?
In a word, “yes” they might be. The impact on the traffic on I-80 itself would be changed by whatever engineering designed features are included, which of course are unknown at this time. So your rhetorical question is impossible to answer. However, I can/do invite you to search your memory of your past driving experiences throughout Northern California and the rest of the United States for an example of such an extended on-ramp, and then think about the impact that existing configuration has on the main through traffic on the Intrerstate. My personal experience is that it has no negative impact, and in many cases has a positive impact. There is an example within 20 miles of downtown Davis at the junction of I-80 and I-5.
Ron asks, “Are you suggesting that a development should be considered for approval based upon what CalTrans might do in the future?
You asked that question for a reason. I want to be sure to answer the actual question you are asking, so could you please clarify why you are asking that question?
Are these roadway expansions part of the ARC proposal?
In your opinion, are possible roadway expansions (including those described above), as well as those which *might* be constructed by CalTrans (in regard to I-80 and its access ramps) something that the city should pursue, for the purpose of accommodating a proposed development?
And, if you’re proposing roadway expansions at certain points, would that create bottlenecks at the point where the expansions end? (Similar to the I-80 example, in the article?) Is there any study whatsoever regarding these ideas?
In any case, what is the source of these ideas, and how does that fit in with the city’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Ron asks, “Are these roadway expansions part of the ARC proposal?”
Ron, I believe you have both the time and wherewithal to answer that question yourself. Is there a reason why you have asked me to do your research for you?
One more question for Matt, as well.
Are you suggesting that you know all of the “WAYS that WAZE” redirects traffic, at a given time?
Seems to me that no one has a good handle on what’s occurring throughout the city, on Thursday/Friday afternoons. Other than the fact that MANY major streets and access points to I-80 are being impacted by traffic – much of it ultimately related to attempts to access or avoid I-80.
And yet, some are apparently ready to arrive at a conclusion that a commuter/freeway-oriented development with 4,340 parking spaces adjacent to I-80 and its access points will have “minimal impact”.
I guess some folks just have more self-confidence in their opinions, than others. But, I’m also reasonably certain that this defiance of basic logic won’t fly, with many voters.
Ron, WAZE is a free-standing factor of its own. WAZE is going to do what WAZE does based on real-time, micro-data. The data generated through the community dialogue about a possible future development is far off WAZE’s radar. Until any future development of any kind in any location anywhere in the United States begins creating real-time micro-data that is input to their computer algorithms, WAZE won’t have anything that can inform the motorists of a particular moment on a particular roadway. Further, the information that WAZE produced at a particular moment on a particular roadway in the past is well in WAZE’s rear view mirror. Their success in providing “value” to their users is not determined by what they did for other users in the past, but rather by what they are doing for thewir current users in the immediate present.
With that said, based on what you know about WAZE, do you think WAZE currently redirects motorists from I-80 (either eastbound or westbound) onto northbound Mace Blvd past the proposed ARC site?
I believe the following impacts are likely:
WAZE is directing traffic onto some of the same roads and freeway access points that ARC commuters would use.
WAZE is causing others to avoid the roads and access points that WAZE is directing traffic to. This group would also include future ARC commuters.
Increased traffic on I-80 and its access points will create additional unpredictable traffic patterns, if ARC is approved (and from increased traffic on I-80 in general).
Other developments which haven’t yet been completed in Davis (and beyond) will cause additional impacts.
There are a great deal of unknowns, regarding the impact on many of the roads and access points that you cite (as a result of the combination of WAZE, ARC, the “Mace Mess”, and increased traffic in general as a result of new developments).
I am not as comfortable as you seem to be at arriving at conclusions on a blog. Other than a prediction that the situation will become worse overall, as a result of ARC and other developments.
I believe Ron has jumped to an erroneous CONCLUSION in that statement. As currently experienced in the afternoon WAZE is routing I-80 eastbound motorists off at Pedrick Road in Dixon, and then north on Mace until rejoining I-80 at either the Mace exit or the Yolo Fruit Stand exit. None of that rerouted WAZE traffic either reached the proposed ARC site or overlaps with likely afternoon ARC traffic. WAZE does not reroute I-80 westbound traffic off I-80 onto northbound Mace. No WAZE rerouting onto northbound Mace means WAZE traffic neither passes by the front of the proposed ARC site nor overlaps with likely ARC traffic.
Again Ron is jumping to a CONCLUSION. The number of ARC commuters who will be commuting northbound on Mace in the afternoon in order to get to ARC will be miniscule. ARC commuters could very well use northbound Mace to get to ARC, but that would take place in the morning not the afternoon. WAZE-reouted traffic in the morning on northbound Mace is virtually nonexistent.
For a third time Ron is jumping to a CONCLUSION. If 4,340 cars were added to the current I-80 traffic load in the morning, the increase to the existing levels of morning I-80 traffic would be a fraction of one percent. Similarly, if 4,340 cars were added to the current I-80 traffic load in the afternoon, the increase to the existing levels of afternoon I-80 traffic would be a fraction of one percent. The traffic patterns on I-80 are currently very predictable, and those predictable patterns won’t become unpredictable with the addition of more vehicles. They will become predictably more congested.
Ron may not be comfortable arriving at conclusions, but that certainly has not stopped him from asserting his own conclusions left, right, and all over the place
The traffic on north Mace really calls into question two things (1) the impact of the Mace redesign, (2) the impact of Waze. I’m trying to get data from the city on Waze impact on the southern part, but if the northern part is impacted without either of those variables, it makes you wonder if this is really just an I-80 traffic issue, period.
I see that Matt is still attempting to engage in detailed responses, most of which do not necessarily correspond (and sometimes do not even conflict) with the statements I made. In other words, he’s arriving at “specific conclusions” regarding my more general comments, which are broader in scope. And for some reason, appears hell-bent on “proving” those more general comments to be “wrong”.
I started to respond in detail, but realized it’s just not worth engaging on here. At some point (e.g., after a traffic study is completed, and a map is presented showing current and projected backups), then perhaps useful conversation can occur. But, probably not on a blog.
As an example of where this can mislead, describing the percentage increase of traffic on I-80 from ARC alone is simply a “sideshow” that Matt is (for some reason) engaging in. The more relevant consideration is the ability of local streets and access points (e.g., to I-80) to handle the increased traffic. (That’s where a “percentage increase” would be a more relevant number.) Along with the resulting impacts that this will have, as drivers attempt to avoid those areas.
Note also that commuters from ARC would be traveling in “both” directions, as some would not work there.
Then, there would be commuters from places like Woodland, driving down Road 102 to Covell, and Mace.
At some point, WAZE may start redirecting traffic in the morning, as well. Perhaps this is already occurring. I have heard reports that WAZE sometimes directs eastbound traffic to Highway 505 (e.g., for the purpose of crossing over to Davis, and avoiding I-80). I’ve done this – even without the “suggestion” from WAZE.
The article above (itself) notes that the same area/streets that ARC would impact is already being impacted by traffic on I-80.
Now, if Matt wants to continue to engage in specific conversations (highlighting those streets and access points that he doesn’t believe will be impacted by ARC), he’s free to do so. But neither he nor I have the expertise (or the studies to back it up).
Or, perhaps he’s hoping that CalTrans will save the day (long-after he seems to hope that ARC is approved, I assume), by providing a designated “que” area, hoping that it doesn’t spill out onto surrounding streets as traffic increases on I-80, its access points, and on Davis streets.
All I know for sure is that anyone who attempts to claim that ARC (with its 4,340 parking spaces) won’t significantly impact the streets described in this article is trying to “sell” something far worse than “snake oil”.
Ron, I just came from the latest meeting at Supervisor Jim Provenza’s office with 10 members of the Mace Boulevard Working Group (created by Supervisor Provenza approximately several months ago), Supervisor Provenza, Deputy Supervisor Rich Reed, and Davis Police Chief Darren Pytel. In the 90-minute meeting Chief Pytel shared the status of the dynamic traffic study that the City and its primary consultant Fehr+Peers, and CalTrans and Google have been conducting during the past six months. The results of those dynamic traffic survey efforts will be presented by the project team at Thursday’s meeting at Pioneer School. The impact of WAZE, the impact of CalTrans’ re calibrating the entrance ramp traffic meters (to reduce the number of cars entering I-80 from the Mace ramps by over 50%), the impact of potential traffic control measures on south Mace, and the impact of proactive WAZE-beating measures at various points on the Tremont-Mace corridor have all been modeled. Google has provided the daily historical traffic load data going back a number of years.
If you really care about traffic data, you will be at the Thursday meeting. If all you care is waging a rhetorical war supporting you own personal agenda and moral code/beliefs, then you will not be there. The choice is yours.
For the record, I have no position either for or against the ARC proposal. As has been my modus operendi for years, I am 100% in support of robust public dialogue, due diligence applied to the various alternatives, and consideration of all the options and all the variables.
Feel free to continue to pursue your ad hominem personal attacks. Think of mne as a duck with your personal attacks having as much impact as drops of water on the feathers of a duck.
Well, I do appreciate the information regarding the meeting, but are those my only two choices? (As if the act of attending, or not attending would demonstrate whether or not one “really cares”?)
From your description of the meeting, it appears that the additional impact of ARC (and other unbuilt – but planned developments) will not be on the agenda.
Well, you’ve presented some selected variables/examples, and appeared to be using them to make broader conclusions. In fact, I’m not sure that your examples are completely accurate on a more limited scale, either. I’m taking a “wait and see” approach, until more information is available (and to ensure that I understand it).
Seems to me that you initiated a somewhat aggressive response, to which I somewhat responded in kind. I have no intention of engaging in personal attacks. But, I am honestly glad that nothing I’ve said bothers you.
It is true that I am not prepared at this point to fully debate the impacts and interactions of WAZE, ARC (and other unbuilt developments), the Mace Mess, etc. However, I suspect that this issue will come up again (and again) – and not just from me. I’m also looking forward to examining the updated traffic study/EIR (when it’s conducted), for ARC.
It’s a complex system, with many moving parts. At this point, I wouldn’t claim or acknowledge what the impacts would be on individual streets or freeway access points. Other than to state that there would be some significant impacts, resulting from a 4,340 parking-space freeway-oriented development, located in the same area where there’s already traffic challenges.
If you want to state that I have an “agenda” of not purposefully adding to those challenges, then I guess I’d have to plead “guilty” to that.
I believe this is (also) my last allowed comment, in this article.
One more, while I’m still amused:
“Welcome to Davis – Home of the Purposeful Que”
Question for David, in reference to this quote from Craig:
Is this part of Craig’s statement true? And if so, how is this determined? (What is the process?)
Assuming that conditions have changed, how is the scope of the study then determined? Is there public vetting involved?
Ron, I believe you can call the City Manager’s office and get that information yourself directly. The telephone number is 530-757-5602, or you can e-mail City Manager Mike Webb at cmoweb@cityofdavis.org
I believe that is what CM said.
Thanks for the suggestions.
I’d suggest that the process is worthy of (at the very least) an article, on the Vanguard. Given the concerns regarding traffic that already exist – as described in this article.
Seems to me that the Vanguard (and perhaps some others on here) are purposefully ignoring the 800-lb “gorilla”, in the room (the ARC proposal).
Not ignoring it Ron.
We simply don’t have enough information to do anything other than speculate at this point.
Here are some questions for you for which I would love to know what your current personal answers are.
— Will the ARC proposal change the number of lanes on the Mace Curve from its present two lanes?
— Will the ARC proposal change the priority and/or design of CalTrans projects on I-80 in the area from the Yolo Causeway to CA 113?
— How will the ARC proposal affect northbound traffic on Mace Blvd from Montgomery Avenue to Chiles Road?
— How will the ARC proposal eastbound and westbound traffic on Cowell Blvd from El Cemonte Avenue to La Vida Way?
Okay, so almost every comment here about ARC. What do we do NOW, assuming that any “fixes” to Mace will only be partial at best?
You take stock of what development throughout the city and region is already causing, avoid driving at peak times, and avoid being on a bicycle sucking in those fumes, as well.
And if you ignore all of those suggestions, you “que”.
Your idea regarding charging WAZE users sounds impractical at best, and perhaps open to legal challenges.
As a side note, there’s reasons why some in the Bay Area figured out a long time ago that road/freeway improvements simply enable the creation of more sprawl and traffic.
This is text from AB 1605, which was introduced to allow San Francisco to charge a toll for Lombard Street. That bill is still pending in the Assembly. AB 1605 is specific to Lombard Street, but it seems clear that it would require a change in state law to enact a toll. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1605
Maybe if people didn’t drive their kids everywhere and had them bike instead, there would be a lot less traffic. I-80 isn’t the problem with local traffic, and widening isn’t the solution to local traffic — and by the time it’s done it will be out-of-capacity already anyway with all the regional growth.
LIKE.
The idea of driving places IN the town of Davis seems downright silly.
Yes, there are people who can’t ride. I get it. But when did it become normal to drive our kids everywhere? And for able-bodied people to drive for every short errand in town?
And don’t forget Unitrans which provides a lot of excellent service around town.
Yeah, I feel ya, DG. Y’know, just yesterday I had a few errands to run around town and passed by KetMoRee, where Peter Alexander Gonzales was killed (sorry that’s how I remember that spot), and then went on campus and passed by the Physics Building where Fred Morris was killed by a lunatic with a claw hammer (sorry that’s how I remember that spot); I then had to drop something off in West Davis and passed Lake and Russel where Megan Glanville was hit by a truck while jogging in heavy fog (sorry that’s how I remember that spot); then I had a box to pick up in east Davis and passed the old site of Sunrise Farms near the site of where Larry McFarland killed his wife and three children, set fire to their home (the Chiles Mansion) and then shot himself (sorry that’s how I remember that spot); I then went home and contemplated the deaths of the well-over-a-dozen people who have committed suicide or been accidentally killed stepping in front of trains with a few hundred feet of my house (sorry that’s all I think about when I’m home).
I have no idea what Matt is referring to, but I did provide some general comments in response to his concerns at 11:58 a.m. Given that I only have a couple comments left after this one, I’m going to conserve them.
I would say that until the traffic study is done for ARC (and in the absence of detailed maps/conditions showing all of the current backups, as well as the possible/predicted ones), engaging in conversations regarding how ARC (or any of the other factors/developments) will impact a given street is not particularly productive, nor does it provide an overview of the impacts. In fact, this is rather difficult to do on a blog – even after the study is done.
In the meantime, can we all (at least) agree that when those advocating for a freeway-oriented development such as ARC (with 4,340 parking spaces) gets stuck in traffic that’s already worsening (and perhaps writes an article complaining about it), can we at least agree that it’s somewhat amusing? (Just trying to find “common ground” here, folks.) 😉
(Not to mention the impacts of developments that have yet to be completed.)
Caltrans can implement one change quickly next week (OK, maybe by January 1). When the bike underpass was built from the Arboretum to South Davis about 15 years ago, Caltrans restriped the 113-I-80 eastbound intersection so that one lane of 113 continued all the way to Richards Blvd. I lived in West Davis at the time, and I noticed that the congestion at that point lessened significantly because the intra-Davis traffic using 113 didn’t add to the I-80 congestion. Stupidly, Caltrans undid that striping after the underpass project was completed, and the congestion increased immediately.
I see this type of error frequently around the state. I’m not sure who is training Caltrans engineers on this but they need to be given failing marks.
Yes, that’s an excellent idea that would help to improve traffic flow. I wonder how we could get Caltrans to do this? Does Caltrans have a way for people to suggest improvements like this?
“We have met the enemy and it is us!”
There is no inherent problem with roadway or freeway capacities. If one chooses when to use them… and how often.
The “bear” shows up maybe three times a day, and then for maybe 1-2 hours.
I go thru the Richards overhead often… but not @ peak hour… I choose timing of my errands…
The concept of spending literally billions of dollars (and even more to maintain, repair etc.) for the convenience of those who choose NOT to plan, so they may save 20-40 minutes on a circuit of trips, I do not support… employers can adjust work hours… many can telecommute… but, “I want to do it now, on my own terms, and I should have no delay, no frustration”, sure sounds like a spoiled child (or, ‘brat’), acting out.
Oh… another solution is ‘get over yourself’, and ‘deal with it’. I am, and when I forget about peak hour, that’s on me… not on anyone else… been doing that for 40+ years, including time in Bay Area, near 101…
We all have choices, so use them…
” “I want to do it now, on my own terms, and I should have no delay, no frustration”, sure sounds like a spoiled child (or, ‘brat’), acting out.”
Or someone with real responsibilities who’s duties and or clients cannot be scheduled to suit you. Your attitude is why people talk about Davis and Davisites in such negative terms.