By Vanguard Staff
DAVIS, Calif. — University of California, Davis is inviting students, employees and the broader Davis community to weigh in on a sweeping draft transportation plan that could shape how tens of thousands of people travel to and through campus for years to come.
The draft plan, titled Moving Forward Together, is open for public review through May 4 and outlines more than 100 potential transportation improvements, ranging from safer street crossings and separated bicycle routes to stronger transit connections and redesigned shared corridors where the campus meets the city. According to the university, it is the first comprehensive update to campus transportation planning since 2009.
Campus officials say the update comes at a critical moment for a university long known nationally for bicycle culture but now confronting new pressures created by growth, changing commute patterns and the increasing mix of transportation modes on campus.
Each day, roughly 40,000 people travel to the UC Davis campus, according to university materials. That daily flow includes bicycles, pedestrians, buses, cars, e-scooters, skateboards and mobility devices moving through one of the most heavily used active transportation networks in the country.
A university photo accompanying the announcement captures that complexity: students weaving through campus on bikes, scooters and skateboards alongside foot traffic, illustrating the challenge planners are now trying to address.
The university said the plan has been in development for more than a year and draws on feedback from more than 3,000 participants, along with analysis of travel behavior, infrastructure gaps and collision data.
That combination of public input and technical analysis suggests campus planners are trying to balance UC Davis’ long-standing identity as a bike-first campus with the practical realities of modern transportation systems.
For decades, Davis and UC Davis have been closely associated with cycling infrastructure and alternative transportation. But planners increasingly face questions that were less prominent in 2009: how to safely integrate faster micromobility devices, how to reduce conflicts at crowded intersections, how to improve regional transit access, and how to manage growth without worsening congestion or safety risks.
The university said the draft includes recommendations intended to “build on that foundation while addressing today’s challenges–including evolving travel modes.”
The phrase “evolving travel modes” reflects one of the central planning issues now facing campuses nationwide. Traditional bicycle and pedestrian networks were not designed for a transportation environment that now includes electric scooters, e-bikes and other small motorized devices that move at varying speeds and often share the same constrained spaces.
At UC Davis, where bikes remain central to campus life, those conflicts can be especially visible during peak class-change hours, when paths and intersections fill rapidly.
The draft plan also has major financial implications.
University officials noted that the total cost of proposed improvements far exceeds current university funding levels, making outside grants and partnerships essential to implementation. Many state and federal transportation programs require an adopted planning document before funding agencies will consider grant applications.
The university said adoption of the plan is therefore “a critical step toward advancing future safety and infrastructure improvements.”
That means the document is more than a vision statement. It is also a strategic tool that could determine whether UC Davis can compete for outside money to build projects that otherwise might remain unfunded.
The planning process also extends beyond campus boundaries.
University officials emphasized that transportation at UC Davis does not stop at the campus edge, where some of the busiest routes are shared with the surrounding city. Corridors connecting neighborhoods, downtown Davis, transit stops and campus entrances often function as joint-use spaces shaped by both city and university decisions.
“Many of the busiest corridors and crossings—where campus and community meet—are shared spaces,” the university said in its public notice.
That makes community participation especially significant, particularly in Davis, where city growth, housing policy, student commuting patterns and transportation infrastructure are deeply interconnected.
As enrollment has grown and housing pressures have intensified, more students and employees live farther from campus or commute from neighboring communities. That has increased pressure on roads, parking systems, bus service and active transportation corridors linking the university with the city.
The transportation plan does not solve those broader land-use and housing issues on its own. But it could influence how effectively UC Davis and Davis respond to them together.
The university is asking the public to review the draft in two ways: by exploring an interactive project map online or by reading the full plan and submitting comments by email.
Residents can review materials at the university’s Moving Forward Together website and submit feedback to movingforward@ucdavis.edu through May 4.
The outreach effort follows a separate university announcement highlighting new opportunities for community input on the draft plan and encouraging broader participation before the comment period closes. The university has framed the review process as an opportunity for stakeholders to help refine priorities before the plan is finalized.
For Davis residents, the stakes extend beyond campus convenience.
Transportation systems shape safety, climate emissions, accessibility and quality of life. They determine whether students can reach class reliably, whether employees can commute affordably, whether visitors can navigate the city efficiently, and whether cyclists and pedestrians feel safe in shared public space.
At a campus and city where transportation has long been part of civic identity, the update may also help define what that identity looks like in a new era.
The draft plan suggests UC Davis is trying to preserve its historic strengths while adapting to modern realities: more users, more modes, more demand and more competition for infrastructure funding.
Whether those ambitions become reality may depend in part on what the public says before May 4.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
A few months ago my family biked through the campus while taking my grandson on a tour of UCD for possible future enrollment. It was on a Saturday and it was crazy with the people walking, biking, scootering and skateboarding. Honestly, I thought someone was going to get hit by the speeding e-scooters and skateboarders. A lot of near misses, it’s crazy. So is this comment okay with the moderation gods of the Vanguard. If not please tell which part didn’t adhere to moderation policy.
“Traditional bicycle and pedestrian networks were not designed for a transportation environment that now includes electric scooters, e-bikes and other small motorized devices that move at varying speeds and often share the same constrained spaces.”
You can say that again. But this is a his a nationwide problem. I went to SF the other day and hadn’t biked there since the pandemic and I felt like I’d been thrown in a Roman circus with he lions. Made Davis appear safe. Bicycling is no longer fun, it’s a survival mode of transport with my head rotating around like that dome on top of a .Waymo.
The only way that the electric bikes/motorcycles have escaped effective regulation so far is due to their relative lack of sound/noise and their image as a climate-saving device. Plus, the different classes aren’t always obvious or well-known.
Will probably take a few more deaths and other problems before they’re reigned-in.
Meanwhile, 50 cc engine-powered mopeds (far less powerful than some of the electric bikes) require riders to wear helmets, have registration, driver’s licenses, etc.
But as soon as some government finds a way to make money off of them (e.g., parking citations if they have license plates), you can be sure that they’ll be reigned-in.
It’s really the parents who are the culprits until Johnny is out of the house, though. (And yes, it’s almost always “biological boys/men” causing the problems, for the same reason they’re disproportionately represented in prison.)
So maybe Beth is wrong, in that we should be cutting off genitals regarding one of the sexes, at least.
Ron, 50cc is roughly 4 times as powerful as the peak power of legal electric bicycles. Without rider input, they can also go about twice as fast as class one and class two electric bicycles.More powerful electric two wheelers are electric motorcycles/e-motos.
“Legal” being the key word here, no doubt.
The first powered 2-wheel vehicle (a Honda QA50) I ever rode probably couldn’t exceed 20 mph. I recently “met-up” with that mini-bike again, since a nephew got it from a family friend.
And yet, even it wasn’t “street legal” when it was produced.
Gas engines vs. electric motors are irrelevant regarding this issue. If anything, you can at least hear a gas engine approaching more easily.
Yes, e-motos that are equivalent to 50 cc mopeds should require helmets and licenses. The question is what to do about Class 2 and 3 ebikes. The problem is both have throttles and law enforcement can’t effectively tell the difference between. In many Class 2s, the speed limiter can be easily overriden turning them into Class 2.
On the other hand Class 1 are an important tool for getting many more people riding bikes. They require peddling in most cases.