There was a pretty lively discussion that transpired on social media recently. Many citizens in this town don’t understand why Village Homes is getting a complete pavement makeover, while arterials are going to pot(holes). Some suspicion was expressed that there may be political leverage involved in the decision making. Neither do voters understand why their streets are so riddled with alligator cracks, fissures and pits, while the current City Council seems relatively unconcerned about maintaining basic city infrastructure. This is especially true when a recently approved sales tax hike was supposed to help solve the pavement problem. In fact, someone was concerned enough to reach out to both the City and the City Council for an explanation. The City finally responded.
However, the reply seemed contradictory. The City’s representative justified prioritizing repairing Village Homes inner streets over major arterials by saying: “Most of the streets in Village Homes are in failed condition.” Yet later in their explanation the City made the following contrary statement: “Pavement preservation—proactive maintenance of roads in fair or good condition—helps extend pavement life and maximize the value of each dollar spent. This is why some streets may receive treatment even if they appear to be in better shape than others.”
The city can’t have it both ways, especially when it comes to fixing very small neighborhood streets in poor condition, at the expense of not repairing main thoroughfares in fair condition. First, considerably more citizens in this town use the thoroughfares than tiny side streets. And secondly, those major arteries are fast deteriorating from fair condition, and are a good portion of the way to degrading to poor condition.
As it turns out, a case was just handed down in May of this year from the California Supreme Court, which gives a harsh lesson to cities allowing their roads to unacceptably worsen. In a 7- 0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could sue the City of Oakland for serious injuries sustained as a result of bicycling on crumbled or cracked pavement. It said the City was obligated to “maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public”. In a statement announcing the $7 million settlement in favor of the plaintiff, the attorney representing the injured party indicated the court’s ruling sent a clear message to California cities that “safe streets are not optional.”
This follows a similar 2018 case in Oakland, where the plaintiff crashed her bicycle on a potholed section of a main boulevard. The city settled with plaintiff for $6.5 million, to cover her medical expenses among other things. In point of fact, over 500 lawsuits have been filed against Oakland by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers between the years 2014 and 2023 — that have cost the city of Oakland nearly $35 million. Part of the city’s payments are from insurance, but most of the money comes from the city’s general fund. So taxpayers are footing most of the bill to pay for the city’s negligence.
In order to be successful in such a lawsuit against a municipality, attorneys must prove the city knew about the bad road conditions for a reasonable amount of time, but failed to repair them. Our City Council has clearly known for quite a while — we’re talking many years here — that Davis roads have been in horrible condition. In 2024 the League of California cities rated Davis roads as the worst of all the cities in Yolo County. That is hardly a distinction Davis should aspire to. And, more importantly, this is a debilitating injury and an expensive lawsuit just waiting to happen. It is an ethical and legal powder keg.
Our City Council needs to seriously grapple with the terrible state of both our main thoroughfares and various side streets. Drive down any road in town, and the pavement conditions are horrendous, with alligator cracking, block cracking, depression, longitudinal cracking, patching, potholes, raveling, rutting, and the like. New city programs and services should not be instituted unless and until the state of the city’s pavement is better addressed. Citizens are fed up with the current state of affairs with respect to the awful condition of our city streets, a situation that is only getting worse by the day.
Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who has served on county and city commissions as well as various task forces. She was given the award of Davis Citizen of the Year in 2014. Dan Carson is a former Davis City Council member and city commissioner with a 45-year career in journalism and state and local government service.
We passed Measure Q, and they still haven’t paved J Street and H Street. Vote ’em all out!!!
Sounds like I’m going to have to collect another bag full of “J Street” [chunks of asphalt cracking out of the pavement] and bring it into general public comment again. I did that two years ago, and sans a desperate inadequate patching, no progress has been made to actually re-pave the street (north of 5th, and especially north of 8th). Major bike artery. Also, the paint stripes as to where the bike lane is are almost gone at this point, which is especially a hazard on the curves just north of 8th on J.
From what I understand, Measure Q can’t possibly generate enough money to repair all the pavement that needs repairing. And then keep it painted. We simply cannot afford to keep all our streets in good repair. Few cities can. And then we build more. Because we always need more. Because more is better. More people, more housing, more streets.
Maintenance is an easy one to keep NOT doing. Mostly because that doesn’t give us anything “more.”
And still we hear that Davis is the “cycling capital of the USA”! I appreciate the emphasis on those lawsuits and related in Oakland: A pothole etc. that’s annoying for people driving, or which occasionally damages a wheel, tire or suspension… can be deadly for someone riding a bike… and the bonus is that cycling does no damage to road surfaces*.
Similarly in a way, road surfaces get worse as speed increases, such that not all potholes are created equal – but something bad at 12 mph on a local street for someone riding a bike is probably similar to someone going 30 or 35 in a car on a arterial.
I agree with the take on the sales tax, but let’s face it: on a national level, we can’t afford keeping all the roads in good condition — The cost of driving personal cars and hauling freight in trucks is not sufficiently taxed.
But back to bikes: I’m doing a bit of work on my bicycle and the other evening had to use the free, but legally compliant lights offered by the city instead of the brighter headlight on my e-bike. It was awful. No way to see the bumps. I’m wondering who does not ride here because those are the only lights they have, but more important: the city is providing lights which are inadequate for its streets.
* People on bikes have so little effect on asphalt surfaces that conditioning from the weight of cars at trucks, which is part of the curing process of new asphalt never happens in places like the physically-separated bike lanes on Mace: they’re still rough a couple of years after installation.
A good example of why district elections in Davis suck.
RG. You can say that again. In fact I will: “district elections in Davis suck”.
From article: “The city can’t have it both ways, especially when it comes to fixing very small neighborhood streets in poor condition, at the expense of not repairing main thoroughfares in fair condition.”
Interesting article. Also, I suspect that some people who live on “very small neighborhood streets” would PREFER that their streets remain in poor condition – to the point where they’re essentially gravel roads (to deter traffic and cause a reduction in speed).
I see that the response you got from the city didn’t provide much explanation.
Those “some people” apparently only walk or drive a car. As Tuvia above points out, what is annoying to people in cars is horrible for people on bikes. Similar to speed bumps that shouldn’t be slowing bike-riders.
My guess is that there aren’t too many bike riders speeding through non-arterial streets. As such, I would think that they would have the same question that the author has, in this case.
As a side note, mountain bikers “seek out” bumps (so to speak).
There’s even quite a bit of difference between different motor vehicles, in regard to this. America – land of the giant, bump-absorbing SUVs and trucks. (Davis’ police department probably should have kept the MRAP for negotiating the local roads – if nothing else.)
:-)
Davis is somewhat of an outlier, what with the Pious-driving “environmentalists” there. (Though it seems to me that the drivers are just as aggressive there, as anywhere else.)
Roads/asphalt wears out from weather/time, as well as use. And in the case of Davis bicycle paths, from tree roots from what I’ve seen.
Overall, the worst roads I’ve seen in the area are high-speed county roads.