By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – When council discussed Focus Items and laid out the next steps for policing, they heard an earful from the public—not on the policing item, but on Mace Blvd.
Item 6 on the list was “finalize technical discussion with County on Mace Blvd., hold community meeting and bring plans to council.”
City Manager Mike Webb, before the onslaught, noted that they don’t have a date pinned down yet for a community presentation. He said that there have been “multiple multiple meetings” with the county and Supervisor Jim Provenza.
“At this point in time, we are committed… to posting and providing diagrams and information well in advance of that community meeting,” he said. He speculated on a meeting right after Thanksgiving, perhaps the first weekend in December.
There were a number of comments from the public, critical of the delays.
Owen Yancher said, “What’s happened over the last several years along the Mace corridor is really 
sad, and the Mace mess project has quite literally decreased the quality of living for thousands of South Davis residents.”
He asked, “My first question is whether or not the giant ornamental orange barriers at the Mace and Cowell intersection are permanent or not. They’ve now been there for what seems like ages, and if they are indeed not permanent, I would like to get a concrete answer on when the city will begin work on restoring the intersection.”
Yancher added, “I know this project was originally intended to improve bicycling safety. And it’s now looking more and more like an entire cohort of local students are going to matriculate from elementary school all the way through high school. While this intersection is still quote unquote under construction.”
Another caller asked when the residents of South Davis “are going to see the new design that’s been promised by city council members and other staff in the city. We need to see that design at least a week or two weeks prior to a community meeting.”
Another caller asked, “Removal of the cement barriers, when will that happen? Removal of the lights at San Marino—when will that happen? Adding back of the two lanes north and south on Mace Boulevard and the right turns. When will that happen?”
Another caller said, “I live in El Macero and I’m wanting to know why the petition that had over 700 signatures was not acknowledged at the meeting.”
Another caller said they have lived in the area for over 30 years: “We’ve been extremely upset about the way the process of changing all the driving lanes came about. We would like to urge the council to please include many community meetings to re view future proposals for Mace Boulevard—the lack of which was complete in the last redesign and has led to such discontent that we see now.”
She said, “We support the return of Mace to two lanes in both directions.”
Another caller suggested we “move forward and forget about the amount of money that was spent on throttling Mace Blvd. and South Davis.”
She added, “With COVID we haven’t had our commutes disrupted so much in the afternoons with the Tahoe Waze traffic, but morning traffic going north on Mace with school started again, has been significantly interrupted.”
In her view, “There’s no increased bicycle school traffic in the morning as was intended with the new design. It just backed up traffic of folks trying to get and drive to work or driving their kids to Pioneer School or Harper School.”
Vice Mayor Lucas Frerichs said, “I completely understand the frustration around the issues with Mace.”
In response, however, he noted that “the Waze app is very much responsible for diverting traffic off of a congested Interstate 80 at Kidwell Road to Tremont Road to Mace Blvd, to try to sneak back onto the freeway and, and bypass a bunch of parking lot traffic that sits in front of UC Davis multiple days a week. So that’s something that is definitely causing an issue there.”
He also noted that the previous council had met in September of 2019, and “we were all ready to go” but “the reality is we had a worldwide pandemic that shut things down for the greater part of a year.. year and a half.”
”There’s frustration, I completely understand it,” Frerichs said. “But it’s not been an attempt to just put our heads in the sand and maybe folks will forget about it.”
Mayor Gloria Partida noted that “there’s no better evidence of the fact that a lot of the issues that are happening on that stretch of highway are in fact attributed to commuters that are coming down the 80, because we didn’t have the backups. We didn’t see the backups that we are beginning to see again now, when everybody was staying home.”
Councilmember Josh Chapman, who represents South Davis, also understands the frustration.
“Believe me this subject has not been off my mind or out of my email box since I was sworn in on December 15,” he said. He said the answer to the questions of changes is what will be addressed at the next community meeting.
At the same time he said, “I also think it’s important for people who listening to this call or who may watch this later who interacted with Mace Blvd. and who may have a different viewpoint from some of the callers here this evening to reach out and have those conversations.”
Mace traffic frustration doesn’t bode well for DISC4.
What was the outcome for the Public Safety proposal? How many positions were added and what’s the total cost?
There was no outcome, it was an update.
Thank you.
Let’s just hope those rocks are cemented-in, lest they be used in some kind of road-rage (or more accurately, “parking-lot-rage”) incident resulting from the frustration of gridlock.
You’d think that this debacle alone would be enough to cause heads to figuratively roll at the council (or for whomever was responsible for the traffic study). Especially since they’re still pursuing DISC, as well.
All of this is more evidence that decision-makers are out-of-touch with many of those they purport to represent.
“You’d think that this debacle alone would be enough to cause heads to figuratively roll at the council (or for whomever was responsible for the traffic study). Especially since they’re still pursuing DISC, as well.”
I’m not sure your point here. What happened is that a previous council approved changes to Mace, the conditions along I-80 worsened in between the decision and the implementation, and there was community backlash. I still think most of the problem was with I-80 not Mace and that people will still likely be unhappy even after Mace goes back to four lanes for motor vehicles.
Also, “they’re still pursuing DISC” is not an accurate statement, the developer has put a new proposal forward and the council has yet to have it come back before them for approval. The council and city is not pursuing DISC – they may end up supporting it however.
“All of this is more evidence that decision-makers are out-of-touch with many of those they purport to represent.”
I fail to see this is evidence of that – the public expressed concerns, the council responded to them. Where is the out of touch?
They (the council and the city’s traffic engineers) didn’t know that traffic would continue to “worsen” on I-80? Really?
Of course they are, especially when it comes to Dan and Gloria. I suspect that all of them already do. Have you asked them?
Did they ask residents in that area if they wanted to reduce the number of traffic lanes, before embarking on the project?
Also, what does this mean (regarding Josh Chapman)? Because he doesn’t sound very committed to fixing the problem that the council created.
How much has the city itself spent on this, and how much more will they spend?
(That is – in addition to the SACOG money that they used to help create the mess?)
They certainly didn’t know the interaction between traffic back up on I-80, the advent of waze and the back up of traffic on Mace. The problem that everyone seems to be forgetting is that Mace was already backing up even before the change and the redo is only going to marginally improve traffic during peak times.
Again, did they ask residents in that area if they wanted the number of traffic lanes reduced, before embarking on the project?
Or, did they just have SACOG money burning a hole in their pocket, and were looking for a cheap way to get the roads repaved (while assuming that all of the other changes tied to that money would be positive)?
You’ll forgive me if I don’t automatically accept your armchair traffic analysis, either.
I have just enough time today to give you my opinion on things. I don’t have time to look stuff up that you’re perfectly capable of doing yourself. So if you want to know the answer to your first question, please look it up.
Ron O
As a resident of Woodland with no discernable ties to Davis, your opinion on what should be done at Mace is of no concern to the rest of us who live, vote, work and own businesses in Davis.
It’s not worth our effort to answer your questions because you have no stake in these decisions. Kibitzing is not appreciated.
Though it is true that I rarely have to deal with that particular “mess”.
Other messes in Davis, maybe so. You don’t actually know, do you.
Truth be told, there is a part of me that is amused when I see gridlock that I’m able to avoid. One semi-favorite pastime is looking at the gridlock on I-80, from overpasses in Davis.
And, there’s nothing quite as satisfying as looking at gridlock on the “other side” of the freeway, compared to the side that I’m in. Because truth be told, I wouldn’t make decisions which cause it, if “I” was in power.
“What happened is that a previous council approved changes to Mace, the conditions along I-80 worsened in between the decision and the implementation, and there was community backlash.”
Seems like there is a lot of buck passing going on here. There are two variables in play, the re-design impacts and the WAZE impacts. I don’t know what the city can do about Waze but blaming the app doesn’t fix anything.
The City should focus on fixing the road. The re-design was a disaster driven by the zealousness of the bike activists. Protected bike lanes don’t make things better. Davis tried it years ago in West Davis and had to remove the barrier. Rich Rifkin wrote a column on it some time ago. The planners, particularly the transportation people, should have known better.
What if the answer is – people are just going to have to wait in traffic sometimes in some parts of town?
I wouldn’t run for office on that platform.
I learned early on that I have an annoying knack for telling people what they don’t want to here, therefore I quickly realized that I would not do well as a politician.
I’d say that a more accurate way to put this is:
People are going to have to increasingly wait in traffic in town (and throughout the region) as a result of the policies, representatives and decisions that they support (or allow).
With resulting impacts on greenhouse gasses, lost productivity and time, etc.
That’s an accurate representation of your opinion.
Waiting in traffic will likely lead to a decrease in GHG emissions because people will be discouraged from driving as much given that they will have to sit longer in a queue. Congestion has been shown to be a strong disincentive to driving. For example, look at the much higher rates of transit use in the Bay Area due to congestion.
That doesn’t appear to be empirically sound, because as you increase traffic, you increase emissions. If congestion leads to reduction of VMT it’s only marginal otherwise the congestion would decrease as well prompting more people to drive.
Let let me get this straight, the more cars that are on the road leads to a decrease in CHG emissions? Is that about right? LMAO
That’s because there is somewhat significant transit to use. Where there is no alternative (for particular trips, not corridors), there is no ability to escape congestion. Some may choose to not make a particular trip, but for the most part people don’t have that choice and put up with the congestion and use WAYZ.
The new road intersection configuration at Lillard and Drummond is terrible too and an accident waiting to happen. Not only the jut outs but took a large part of the intersection.
Was not aware of that new configuration, so will take a look @ some point…
But, a historical perspective…
Lillard, in that area, was once Cowell, originally envisioned (1960’s) to be a 4 + lane arterial crossing all of South Davis… you could land a Cessna on that puppy!
Similarly, Drummond was called CR 103… designed as an arterial in the 1960’s, destined to be the new overcrossing/interchange (I-80), going from Cowell to Covell (irony)… that’s why, in the 1990’s, the area that is a greenbelt in Mace Ranch, between Loyola and Covell… the right of way had the tentative designation of Wilson Way
Later political/other decisions were made in the 1980’s, making Cowell (now Lillard) more a ‘collector’ street… same as to Drummond… no crossing/interchange re: I-80 @ CR 103 (now Drummond)…
So, an intersection of roadways both intended to be 4+ lanes arterials… huge intersection… with the changes in ‘plans’ in the late 1980’s relegating/changing both streets to “collectors”… so the intersection was “overkill”…
So here we are, ~ 60 years later, trying to deal with 2020’s realities/prospects…
As to the specific recent changes, haven’t seen, so no judgement, at this point…
Please note that the Cowell @ Mace Blvd intersection size, was also based on Cowell being a 4+ lane arterial roadway… the choices in the late ’80’s changed the dynamics… and the 2020’s realities…
Just history…
Next installment… why the crossing of Richards @ UPRR is a problem, and why there is an overcrossing (but not an interchange) @ Pole Line, but not @ CR 103/Drummond (which would have been both)…
Spoiler alert: all the decisions were based on trying to stop growth in South Davis, and to stop Mace Ranch from happening… yeah, like those both ‘worked out well’… the “no growth-ers” are/were primarily responsible for many of the traffic problems we face today…
And, ironically, they use the problems that they (or previous) ‘set-up’ to oppose any growth…
My recollection is that a very large subdivision was proposed for South Davis in the 1960s and that was the impetus for the start of the slow-growth movement in Davis. Recall what the original planned size for Davis was back then?
I don’t recall, Don… have seen the old GP’s, particularly 1972 and later, but never kept a copy, and don’t recall… sorry…
The old GP’s may be @ library or old City files… the # 74,000 comes to mind. Might be incorrect.
There was a proposal for a large subdivision EAST of El Macero… City fought it, it went to lawsuits, and actually made it to the POTUS folk… a few years later, it was determined that land was in the 100-year flood zone…
Will be interested in your take since think you have alot of historical expertise. That explains why Lillard is so darn wide. I tried to get the city to remove the 4 way stop at that intersection years ago since it seemed so unnecessary and there is one so close. Alas, nope.
As to the 4-way stop… because of the size of the intersection, it was not safe as an ‘uncontrolled intersection’ (no ‘stops’)… yet volumes and crash history did not justify a signalized intersection… with “20-20 hindsight”, a single (circulating) lane roundabout would have been ideal… but the ship (and pavement widths) sailed long ago…
No pun intended 😐
BTW, what happened with G Street at the CC meeting?
This is one of the most “honest” acknowledgements I’ve seen you make on the Vanguard. Thanks for that.
“Waiting in traffic will likely lead to a decrease in GHG emissions because people will be discouraged from driving as much given that they will have to sit longer in a queue.”
Its ideas like this that keep the GOP in business.
I don’t know if you could say Mace was “beloved,” but it worked and it was an attractive boulevard. Yes, as traffic increased because people who were priced or burned out of the Bay Area began commuting to and from Sacramento we had short periods of congestion, predictably during commute hours on Thursdays and Fridays, or the day before a long weekend. The old design allowed congestion to clear quickly. People who just needed to move around in their neighborhoods to take their kids to school or go to the Nugget could do so, using the second lanes and sweeping right turn lanes of the old Mace.
Mace (both vehicle and bike lanes} was scheduled for repaving in 2018, but it soon became clear that something entirely different was happening. South Davis residents started asking questions. The City held a meeting in January of 2019 in the Mace firehouse. It was attended by over 100 residents who made it clear that they didn’t like the new configuration. It was obviously a bad design. The City stated that they were going to finish it anyway, and that we’d learn to love it.
Here we are two years later, two petitions (781 signatures on the most recent), survey results with details about what needs to be fixed, traffic incident reports (problems and near misses) all submitted by residents along with photos of the problem areas, and Mace is still a Mess. The current configuration has taken us from predictable congestion to hours of complete gridlock for 3-4 days a week.
Fixing Mace isn’t an either/or choice between safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and restoring vehicle lanes. The County has drafted designs (for free) that demonstrate there is plenty of room to provide safe passage for all.
South Davis residents understand how WAZE and other navapps work. South Davis residents know that increased traffic on I-80 has made the Mace Mess worse, but south Davis residents don’t want to live with the current Mace design until 2028, when CALTRANS’ I-80 corridor project might be completed. There isn’t a single south Davis resident who thinks fixing Mace will eliminate congestion, but we do know that Mace worked much better before the current configuration and that congestion is better than gridlock.
South Davis residents didn’t ask for the Mace Mess. The current configuration is a bad design. Here’s hoping that the City will be showing us a redesign that fixes the problems we’ve told them about for the last two years and not just a tweaked version of the current demonstrated bad design.
The problem is that the City has been taken over by bicycle zealots. I’m all for safety and bikes too but at the point where it makes it impossible for residents to manage the day to day necessities of living their lives it becomes over reach.
It looks like the City is about to do it again on 14th street at the High School. The traffic jam tomorrow and throughout the week at drop off and pick up at DHS, St James and North Davis is almost going to rival the cluster…k they have left at Mace.
That couldn’t be, Ron G.
We already know that all of the students in Davis get to school via bicycle, due to their (and their parent’s concerns) for the climate.
You must be thinking of some other town, perhaps one that doesn’t have the same level of bicycle infrastructure. “Build it, and they will ride.”
🙂
It’s interesting. I don’t think any bicycle advocate feels like they have taken over the city. Probably the exact opposite.