One of the biggest issues facing the development of the Village Farms project is going to be perceived traffic impacts.
By way of example, there was a comment on the Vanguard last week, that flagged traffic impacts from the proposed Village Farms project.
Eileen Samitz wrote that “traffic impacts which would be incredibly worse than it is now from adding 1,800 more housing units at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road which is already incredibly impacted. No one is going to believe that shoe-horning in 1,800 units on this Village Farms site is going to be ‘environmentally superior’ because it makes no sense. It is illogical in particular since the City has no plan to significantly improve its currently minimal, inadequate and inconvenient public transit system which is designed primarily to serve UCD’s needs. Creating higher densities without the infrastructure of a robust transit system would only impact the environment far more due to more traffic.”
That’s part of the point that the Davis Citizens Planning Group was making with their piece: “Planning Starts with Transit.”
They argue that “it would be irresponsible for us to perpetuate this unsustainable pattern of low-density sprawl by approving any more car-centric developments on our periphery;”
At the same time, they acknowledge, “Doing ‘nothing’ and just letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities doesn’t mean there are no traffic impacts; it just makes the commutes longer for those who work in town but can’t afford to live here. And that also increases greenhouse gasses that we all are affected by.”
They push for a more sustainable option “for developing better housing on our periphery. All that is required is getting back to the ‘streetcar suburb’ model that existed before the advent of the automobile.”
If you haven’t read the piece, I highly recommend you do so:
Let me state at the outset that I completely agree with the need to move away from being an “almost entirely car-dependent” city. I also completely agree with both Samitz and the Citizens Group that our current transit system is completely inadequate.
But I want to make a separate but related point—one of the reasons our transit system is inadequate is that we have failed in an even more basic planning concept, in that we do not have a housing-jobs match in Davis.
The result is we have a huge number of people who live in Davis, and then drive to Sacramento and the Bay Area to go work. And while it is true that some of those folks hop on the Capital Corridor train, most hop into their single-occupancy cars and get on the highway.
Moreover, a lot of the folks that work at UC Davis—many of them not faculty, but staff who can’t afford to live in Davis—get into their cars and drive to work.
We see this play out morning and night. In the morning, we see all those folks lined up along Richards Blvd. to cram through the tunnel, and then in the evening we see the traffic often backed up to Russell Blvd., down B St., backed up to go back through the tunnel to get back onto I-80.
That traffic is commuter traffic and a direct result of the fact that we have failed to provide housing that people who work in town and especially at UC Davis can afford.
Would a better transit system lower that number? Perhaps. But that’s a much larger project than just Davis can endeavor to undertake.
But the other point that I have noticed is that, while everyone is pointing out the traffic impacts at Pole Line and Covell where Village Farms would go, I have driven that corridor morning and night and what I have noticed is that most of the traffic isn’t local traffic.
For example, you are not seeing a steady string of traffic coming out of Cannery or Wildhorse and getting on Pole Line and Covell.
The other day, when I dropped my daughter off at the high school to play her soccer game and then drove to my South Davis home, most of the traffic along that congested corridor drove to I-80 and then headed east toward Sacramento. Most of that traffic did not come out or go into the major housing developments along the way—it wasn’t local traffic.
The point I have made is that the simple fact that we could put more housing in Davis might not actually increase traffic along that corridor. It might do the opposite—it might allow people who are otherwise commuting into Davis to take other forms of transportation to go work at UC Davis. That could help alleviate traffic problems for people who live in Woodland and work at UC Davis or people who work in Sacramento and work at UC Davis.
As the Citizens article noted, “Doing ‘nothing’ and just letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities doesn’t mean there are no traffic impacts.” We need to stop thinking of traffic analysis as being such a static thing—more houses here might actually reduce traffic, ESPECIALLY if we couple it with a real investment to get people out of their cars.
But the basic principle here is that putting people closer to jobs reduces commutes, travel and congestion. The closer we can get them to jobs, the better off it will be.
I’ve not experienced the intersection of Pole Line and Covell as incredibly impacted. It’s busy but managed by stoplights. I think Eileen is often given to inflammatory rhetoric but we shouldn’t let that rhetoric drive the discussion.
Dismissive, much?
“The result is we have a huge number of people who live in Davis, and then drive to Sacramento and the Bay Area to go work. And while it is true that some of those folks hop on the Capital Corridor train, most hop into their single-occupancy cars and get on the highway. The result is we have a huge number of people who live in Davis, and then drive to Sacramento and the Bay Area to go work. And while it is true that some of those folks hop on the Capital Corridor train, most hop into their single-occupancy cars and get on the highway.”
And yet, some folks want to add another 1,800 housing units to that situation – in a spot that’s highly-likely to appeal to commuters.
By the way, Road 102 is often backed up for a couple of miles on the “other end” in Woodland – especially on Thursday/Friday evenings, near Costco. I believe that most of them are waiting to get on I-5. I don’t know where they’re coming “from”, but it doesn’t seem likely to me that adding 1,800 housing units on that same road is going to “reduce traffic”.
You are correct that adding housing at Village Farms could appeal mainly to commuters, and we make that point in our article: “adding to the local inventory of detached single-family houses will DEFINITELY make traffic worse in Davis. That’s because any detached house here will sell for at least $700,000, and our city is not growing enough jobs that pay the salaries necessary to afford such prices; so those new residents will likely be working out of town and adding to the existing rush hour commute traffic.” On the other hand, building more rental apartments that aren’t aimed solely at students and building for sale units that are priced at what our general workforce (including school teachers and most University employees) can afford CAN take people off the commute slog. The only non-subsidized product types that meet that latter criteria are attached units like half-plexes and townhouses, which can be had for under $600,000 in Davis. People who work in Woodland, Sacramento or West Sacramento can afford a house closer to their jobs for that amount so are unlikely to buy here and work there (yes, some will make that choice for our superior schools). At present, Village Farms is heavily weighted toward detached houses, however, and in subsequent articles we will present alternatives that better serve the needs of our community.
Alex says: “On the other hand, building more rental apartments that aren’t aimed solely at students and building for sale units that are priced at what our general workforce (including school teachers and most University employees) can afford CAN take people off the commute slog.”
I don’t know how apartments can be “aimed” to discourage UCD student occupancy, but the school district itself is oversized (and should be reduced to match the needs of the city). I don’t know of very many school teachers and University employees who want to live in an apartment the rest of their lives, and I suspect that most of them have partners/spouses who also bring in a salary. And most of them probably want a substantial house, with a 2-3 car garage, a yard, etc. Which means that (if they want a new house), they’ll settle outside of the city.
But again, this is not a population that’s not necessarily increasing in the first place, unless they’re specifically pursued (for some reason that escapes me).
Also, wasn’t UCD planning to build housing on campus for its employees, as well?
Alex says: “People who work in Woodland, Sacramento or West Sacramento can afford a house closer to their jobs for that amount so are unlikely to buy here and work there (yes, some will make that choice for our superior schools).”
Of those three locations, one provides a substantial number of “middle-class” jobs (Sacramento). As far as Davis’ “superior schools” are concerned, one doesn’t have to live in Davis to attend them (and can avoid paying DJUSD parcel taxes if they live outside of Davis).
From article: At the same time, they acknowledge, “Doing ‘nothing’ and just letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities doesn’t mean there are no traffic impacts; it just makes the commutes longer for those who work in town but can’t afford to live here. And that also increases greenhouse gasses that we all are affected by.”
I find the phrase “letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities” to be particularly amusing and Davis-centric. Is the claim that adjacent cities “won’t” pursue housing growth if Davis does? Seems highly questionable, given that other cities actively PURSUE development (and have already created plans for it). These plans are available for anyone who wants to look them up.
But perhaps even more to the point: As long as there’s a price differential between cities, the less-expensive cities will ALWAYS attract relatively lower-income residents who work elsewhere. That’s why, for example, Pacific Heights (in San Francisco) has more-wealthy people (and was developed sooner) than Daly City. And that occurred well-before the fake NIMBYism claims.
You are repeating the same idea from another recent article, after I (partially) refuted it
DG say: “But the basic principle here is that putting people closer to jobs reduces commutes, travel and congestion. The closer we can get them to jobs, the better off it will be.”
It’s not that you’re “wrong”, but unless you can control who buys the houses by where they work, the basic patterns and percentages can be predicted via modeling. The degree to which what you say will be true, within a margin of error, can be modeled. I’ll repeat my comment below.
————————-
DG say: “—because it might be that providing housing closer to the university will actually reduce VMT overall by putting people closer to work.”
That’s not ‘evidence based’, that’s speculation. And you do it frequently, while criticizing others for their speculation, then using ‘evidence base’ while ignoring ‘other’ ‘evidence’ that doesn’t fit the narrative.
I work with models in transportation, some outputs used as inputs for VMT impact and then air impact studies. While not using VMT models, I know how they work. They look at demographics, similar towns, surveys of transportation movement and mode choice in Davis itself, distance for many trip pair types, aggregated, price of gas, availability of parking. It’s not important to understand the mechanism.
What IS important to understand is that you can model all this, and even push various parameters to their limits to see the outer limits of how people will behave and what the effect is on movement, choice, VMTs and air pollutants. While not precise, the overall trends, if done well, can show pretty good global predictions. And the disturbing thing is that as long as people are given *choice*, the auto still is king unless you make radical design changes in design and transportation, and even then auto is still king, just a smaller king.
But my main point is that statements like, “—because it might be that providing housing closer to the university will actually reduce VMT overall by putting people closer to work.” can all be modeled and tested. It is never ‘people will do this’ and then other political side says, ‘and people will do that’ — No, all the patterns are known and the overall trends can be tested and balanced. It’s not mysterious; it’s always in between what the ideological pundits say people will do. Of course, beware consultants that entities can hire who will give the results the entity wants instead of the ‘real’ results, by tweaking the model or its inputs — because that will become ‘evidence’ that can be ‘based’.
But in all these cases — while I’m not a no growther — I do believe California has limits, will always be expensive as hell, and there will always be people willing to sleep in the bushes in a relatively nice climate and do drugs and not pay the rent if we let them, and growth, built wrong especially, has serious consequences on the environment. And building in fire zones and flood planes and on top of earthquake faults is all f*cking stupid. And we are all going to pay for this mass stupidity in unbelievably higher insurance rates which are going to be reflected in rents. Housing in California never will be affordable. Find that “dream” is a less dynamic, less dramatic, place.
The important topic is how do we build more housing now, not, how many spurious reasons can we come up with to justify not building more housing.
I strongly support having better transit, but not at the expense of addressing our two decades and counting failure to build appropriate housing in town. Any change to the process you propose now will result in a 5-10 year delay in getting projects built. That is simply unacceptable. We should consider these past failures of proper planning as ‘sunk costs’ and focus instead on planning for future projects (5-10 years out). Projects already in process should move forward without the interference of this fruitless ‘search for perfection.’