For next Tuesday’s city council meeting, city staff has analyzed the impact of the Fifth Street Corridor Reconfiguration, two years after the changes were implemented. “Staff collected data on Fifth Street and adjacent streets before and after the reconfiguration to assess the impacts of the roadway redesign.”
The basic findings are that the daily traffic volume decreased by about 2000 from the two years prior to the change to the two years after the change. Meanwhile, the collision rate, which does not include either driving under the influence or hitting a fixed object (as those are deemed unrelated to the change), increased from 3.5 collisions per million vehicle miles to 5.39.
While on the surface that might be seen as concerning, the actual data show that the number of collisions did increase from 24 between August 2012 and July 2014, up to 31 from August 2014 to July 2016. The vehicle-on-vehicle collisions increased from 16 to 19 over those periods. There was an increase of 7 to 10 of vehicle-on-bike collisions, and an increase of 0 to 1 of bike-on-pedestrian collisions.
But, in some ways, the bike collisions are expected.
“The number of the bicycle related collisions has increased throughout the corridor,” the staff report noted. “However, the number of the cyclists in the corridor has greatly increased as well. The majority of the vehicle/bicycle collisions were ‘right hook,’ where the drivers collided with the cyclists while turning right.”
In other words, given the much larger volume of traffic for bicycles, it should probably not come as a surprise to see a marked increase in collisions.
On the other hand, the vehicle collisions are something we should pay attention to. Staff speculates, “The majority of the vehicle vs. vehicle collisions at the non-signalized intersections were ‘broadside,’ where the drivers from the side streets turned onto Fifth Street (mostly left turns). This may be due to the drivers’ impatience and accepting smaller gaps when vehicles are queued on Fifth Street.”
What this analysis does not tell us is the trend on both traffic rates and collisions. In other words, two years is a long period of time to analyze. We saw a good amount of change in a short period of time and, if most of the collisions were early in the period, perhaps the impacts will decrease over time.
Staff could provide the trend over the last two years, but they note, “Determining trends cannot be accurately assessed with two data points (before and after counts), and additional data collection over multiple years will provide a basis to better understand how travel patterns have changed. Staff is planning to do additional counts in November of this year and again in future years to provide more data to monitor the performance of the corridor. This data will allow Staff to plan for and prioritize possible future corridor enhancements.”
Anecdotally, there seemed to be an adjustment period when the changes were made, but, for the most part, we have not seen a lot of problems or heard a lot of complaints. A few people who were skeptical of the change have seemed to believe it has been a success.
Staff notes, “At the Bicycling, Transportation, and Street Safety Committee (BTSSC) meeting on September 8, 2016, comments related to the need for more data collection to statistically be of value in assessing the performance of the corridor came up as well as when future improvements might be considered…”
These included:
- Installing raised medians at some locations to potentially provide safe pedestrian refuge.
- Installing additional lighting at un-signalized intersections and improving the striping and pavement conditions.
In our view, the installation of lighting is something that the city could do. However, the raised medians would cause a problem when buses stop, as they would not allow enough room for cars to pass on the left.
With the vehicle-on-vehicle collisions, one thing the city might consider is directing cars (much as they do for parking) toward F Street and G Street, where the intersections are signalized. We have noticed instances where drivers of cars get a bit impatient. However, even during peak hours it seems that the flow of traffic is not steady but rather in bursts, which allows for gaps in the traffic to be able to make left turns onto Fifth Street.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thank you for evolving on the use of terms… “collisions” is a much more accurate and appropriate term than the “A-word” often used in the past.
It will be interesting to see the analysis of the PCF’s [primary collision factors], a term that has been used by law enforcement and the traffic engineers for over 40 years. Am tempted to do the “Carnac” thing, but my better angels tell me to read the staff first.
So the bottom line is that the changes have made Fifth Street more dangerous, especially for bicyclists.
Perhaps we can hold off on the re-striping of the east end of Fifth Street until we have more data?
I don’t believe that the changes made Fifth Street more dangerous, and as I noted to Phil, bikes avoided Fifth previously because it was too difficult to navigate. Again I would like to see when the collisions occurred – were there more early and have people now adjusted.
As someone who originally didn’t like the idea of the configuration I find it much safer to drive and bike and find it that traffic flows nicely.
That’s how I feel
Don, do I have to hold your hand? [Alan holding Don’s hand and shouting loudly] Very few bicyclists used the corridor before!!!!! Now many, many times more bicyclist use Fifth Street!!!!! So there are more collisions because there are more bikes!!!!! What don’t you understand!!!!!/????
A true test would factor in the total collisions on alternate routes that bikes would have taken.
Don, is your making such a statement, similar to those made by some downtown business pre-re-striping, colored by the fact you have a business on the east end of Fifth Street? That area NEEDS to be similarly re-striped. One of the worst wrecks I had bicycling occurred on this stretch due to an errant car that pulled in front of me where there is no striping.
One comment made by the form-based planning consultants after the Tuesday Council meeting was a suggestion that Davis make a formal motion for a City policy statement that transportation planning should be done on a “Bicycles and Pedestrians First” basis. Here Here!!!!
My specific concern about the restriping at our end of Fifth Street with respect to my business was any impact it would have on deliveries. We receive our goods via big rig trucks, often doubles, which double-park so we can offload by hand. We do this multiple times each week. In so doing, we block a full lane of traffic. Staff assured me that we will be able to continue doing that. So I’m not worried about direct impacts on my nursery.
I agree some re-striping, or something, is needed. The intersection at L Street is particularly problematic. There’s plenty of room to do things; there’s a full separated bike and pedestrian lane fenced off on the south side of the street. My point is simply that if this has caused problems on the part that’s been changed, they should hold off on implementing further changes until those problems are dealt with.
Don’t be patronizing. Your statement that “very few bicyclists used the corridor before” is not what I’ve observed. I’ve been on this street for many years. Give me data, not exclamation marks. At the moment, the data clearly indicate that the road diet implemented on Fifth Street has increased the number of bike accidents on Fifth Street. If they were happening somewhere else and have just moved to our street, I guess that mitigates the data somewhat. But otherwise, your exclamation marks just make you look loud and annoying.
Don, I apologize for my patronizing tone. That was not warranted.
I don’t know if the report had numbers for the bicycle counts before and after. That would have been very useful for the article.
I am understanding of the needs of your business. I was more concerned you were going to become to the East of L section what some downtown businesses were to the A to L section. With your further explanation, I can see that you are not, but rather have legitimate concerns.
When we did the neighborhood walk for Old East Davis traffic calming (still not implemented), Jennifer Anderson came along with neighbors to make sure large truck access was considered, and some modifications were made that were agreeable to the neighborhood. These things can always be worked out, as vibrant businesses are important to Davis.
Don: Although I haven’t witnessed this with your particular business, I’m wondering why any business is allowed to have double-parked trucks, blocking a “full lane” of traffic. Isn’t that illegal?
When Fifth street is narrowed to one lane in front of your building, will these trucks then be blocking a bike lane?
No response?
The most important sentence above was not the bit about collisions with bicycles increasing, rather it is the sentence that came after: “The majority of the vehicle/bicycle collisions were ‘right hook,’ where the drivers collided with the cyclists while turning right.”
These kind of collisions should warrant a very heavy fine against the driver. Drivers are speeding up to get around and turn right in front of cyclists. The broken green boxes are to let drivers know they are supposed to slow down and make their right turn BEHIND cyclists. This is the same problem of drivers turning right from the traffic lane across the bike lane at controlled intersections. There is a law that drivers are supposed to be IN the bike lane when making a right turn precisely to avoid hitting bicyclists. I see it violated every damn day.
I think the Fifth Street road diet has been a success from a traffic flow perspective but poor enforcement and non-existent education of drivers in the proper use of bike lanes for making right turns is the biggest problem.
“So the bottom line is that the changes have made Fifth Street more dangerous, especially for bicyclists.”
It would seem to me that this should be taken into account in any decision about placement of housing, especially student housing, that would direct more bicycle traffic along 5th street.
Which street would you prefer those accidents be moved to?
I would prefer, as I have stated previously that the pedestrian/bike routes be separated from the car routes whenever there are likely to be very large numbers using those modes as would be the case from the Sterling Apartments. An arrangement as you noted along the south side of 5th would suffice. Otherwise what we will see with that particular development would be to move at least some of those accidents to 3rd and 4th streets.
The traffic analysis for the currently in process Sterling Apartments EIR should delve into this in depth. If it doesn’t then one has to question its adequacy.
Highbeam… hope you are on the clock today…
Just got here, hp…”on the clock” makes it sound like more than volunteer!
Highbeam wrote:
> Just got here, hp…”on the clock” makes it sound like more than volunteer!
Thanks for your work, I hit refresh on the shooting story and saw that you already fixed a line that didn’t make sense…
?
I like the changes but agree that the collision data is troubling. A question: are the lights at 5th and F/G ‘smart’? I was driving to turn at 5th and G yesterday, no cars except me and it took a long time for the light to change. I thought ‘smart lights’ were part of the redesign there?
PS: I almost always take 8th not 5th so not as familiar with 5th.
As I travel on my bicycle on the 5th Street of logic and analysis by city staffers, I must have missed a signal for a right-hand-turn.
Everyone remembers the protracted process and advocacy for re configuring the 5th Street corridor. A major component of the proposal was to make 5th Street safer for cyclists, there was an unacceptable rate of vehicles striking bikes particularly at intersections.
The City gave approval, the community gave approval. Traffic engineers, with input from the cycling community, altered traffic flow and placed distinctive markings to maximize cyclist safety. Cyclists were encouraged to use 5th Street because it was now much safer.
Now, a study after 2 years of operation reveals cyclists are in greater peril statistically, completely contrary to predictions and anticipations of all proponents of this measure. What to say?
What was said by city analysts is detailed above. The explanation for more cyclists being struck by automobiles is because there are more cyclists. Naturally, there would be a few more cyclists struck by vehicles simply because there are more of them. Simple logic applied.
Try again, please, and include the other relevant statistic. There has been a substantial drop in the number of automobiles traveling 5th Street, a remarkable 2,000 cars a day! Simple logic re-applied: Fewer numbers of cars are hitting greater numbers of cyclists.
When adding the unmentioned part of their own study and analysis, how would city staffers now judge the overall level of cyclist safety?
” there was an unacceptable rate of vehicles striking bikes particularly at intersections.”
I don’t believe you are correct on this point. The concern was that Fifth Street as previously configured had neither a bike lane nor a safe place for bikes to ride and so most avoided Fifth.
Are bicycle accidents up overall in the city? As David pointed out we have more bicycle activity on 5th now since the reconfiguration. So taking that into account are accidents up when considering the increase in bicycle miles driven on 5th?
And the basis for this “concern” was?. . .
I’ll cast a vote that it was cyclist safety.
David wrote:
> increase from 3.5 collisions per million vehicle miles to 5.39.
Why not write
> increase from 1.00 collision per month to 1.29 collisions per month?
P.S. I’m betting that some of the collisions were due to the “change” and I’m betting that over the long term the new design will be safer.
I used the staff’s metrics. I wish the staff had included numbers on the increase of bicycle trips because if it went from a few dozen a day to thousands, an increase of 4 collisions over two years does not equate to more danger.
Depending on the severity of those collisions, tell that to those who were actually involved.
You are actually correct, but when city staff pointed out low collision rates, prior to the decision on the reconfiguration, the proponents of the ‘road diet’ included the DUI and fixed object collisions, to refute staff… they used those to show how “dangerous” the corridor was, and the road diet would “solve” that… someone shouldn’t have the ability to argue both ways… a kinda’ apples and oranges thing…
Bottom line… collision rates on Fifth are one piece of the puzzle… another is where those diverted trips went (unless they just ‘disappeared’), and what happened to the collision rates on those alternate routes… haven’t read the staff report… will withhold further comment until I have…
That’s a good point hpierce (that you hint at)
We don’t know the severity of accidents
What if there were more but less severe
That would have to be factored.
There was a suggestion in another thread to close access to the side streets north of 5th/Russell and make access on 8th. That would eliminate left turns on to or off of 5th.
Was any consideration given to this?
Yes.
Several times.
Going back to the ’90’s, and brought forward by City staff (eliminating lefts on Fifth at peak hours). Response was, “thank you for you input”…
If they closed the access to all streets which did not have a signal then they could turn 5th into a true boulevard with a continuous median strip featuring statues of world leaders. “Leaders” in this case meaning anyone with initiative enough to send us a free statue.
Am pretty sure there are a few of the “old North” folk who would love having their statues there… to memorialize their input to the “road diet”…
So the primary justification for the Fifth Street road diet redesign was that it would improve bike and pedestrian safety, and here we have data showing twice the number of accidents… and those that originally pushed the road diet plan are making excuses for this?
Here is my assessment.
1. Car traffic throughput is better than I expected. The left turnouts help more than I expected.
2. Except when the buses stop… it creates a major traffic jams. It blocks bike traffic thus causing the bikes to have to pass in the only remaining auto lane.
3. Except at rush hour. At rush hour when school is in session the volume exceeds the capacity. The other lanes in the old design provided more capacity to help clear out the cars. Buses stopping during rush hour are a nightmare. They block both the car lane AND the bike lane.
4. There are more cars on the side streets and on eighth street. In terms of the total impact of bike safety resulting from this change, we would need to incorporate the increase in accidents from this too.
5. Crossing fifth or tuning onto fifth from the side streets… for cars, bikes and pedestrians… has become much more difficult and dangerous. Often the flow of cars is just enough for the next light change at B Street and G and F street to send the next wave of cars. People get frustrated having to wait that long and take chances to speed though the intersection. I have seen some near misses as waiting driver is processing the multiple dimensions of movement only to miss seeing the next new movement of someone starting to cross the street.
My assessment is that we have made the street appear more accommodating for bike traffic when the reality is and has been that it is a primary east-west traffic corridor for Davis with a lot of cross traffic and not really safe for bikes no matter what we do to redesign it. But since we have made it appear more safe, more bikes are traveling on it.
And this is only going to get worse. Adding 700 students per year means at least another 300 car drivers per year and then how many more on bikes?
And since Davis isn’t expanding… isn’t growing peripherally and building more self-contained neighborhoods…. since the core area no-growers sue the city to make sure the downtown is the only major commercial zone – shabby as it is – then we will just see more congestion.
At this point I am giving the road diet a C- at best. After looking at the accident rate in the general area including Eighth Street, I assume I would give it a D.
I drive on that street nearly every day, and I agree with Frankly’s observations. I have wondered for some time if a signal light at 5th and E (east of the fire station) would help.
Clearly the road diet hasn’t made it safer. The data here show that it’s made it less safe for bicyclists, at least on that street. I’d be curious what the accident rates are overall in the city, and especially on nearby streets.
Traffic engineering always has unintended consequences. If those consequences are reducing safety, there’s an obligation to reduce the harm they’ve done. If they aren’t going to restore the previous status, then road engineers need to move quickly to reduce the accidents and keep the cars and bikes moving more smoothly.
Damn, Frankly… got to give you credit again! It truly is Fifth Street… not “5th Street” … thank you for the correct reference!
As to the rest, stay tuned… am sure I’ll comment more, once I’ve read the staff report…
To keep people safe I think the local government should ban bike riding unless every rider has this…
https://youtu.be/YCe7Je-u68I
The Russell Blvd. narrowing is clearly increasing collisions on the west end of the street. It makes no sense to repeat the problem on the east end of the street on Fifth Street. There is nothing “acceptable” about an increase in car vs car, or bicycle vs car, or bicycle vs bicycle collisions.
Does the City need to have a fatality before they “get it” that the road diet has had some significant negative impacts which will not lessen with 1,000 more bikes daily from Sterling Apts. being added to the equation? In addition if they narrow the east end of Russell (i.e. Fifth St.) it will not only cost the City financially, but likely to cost lives.
Eileen, Fifth Street between L St and Poleline has effectively been narrowed East to West all Summer due to construction of the pipeline, so I don’ understand your warning.
Huh? Barely.
Edit: maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
The impact of the pipeline construction on the stretch between L and Poleline has been minimal. There’s a thing along the curb next to the community gardens that has impacted parking, and the work around it slows traffic a bit at times. Other than that, there’s been hardly any effect on traffic. So I don’t quite get your point.
There are a number of simple solutions, if only the City would listen and follow the good advice provided by citizens.
Cryptic, but you’re entitled…
Not all “advice” by citizens is “good”, and many of the key City staff have knowledge, training and experience, and just happen to be Davis “citizens”…
While perhaps not a standard rate, my calculations–using data provided–show that car/bike crashes rates were 2.8 per 1000 bikes entering the corridor pre diet and 2.6 per 1000 bikes entering the corridor post. Using this metric we can suggest that the corridor is no less safe for bikes after the road diet than before. Of course, it would be better to use a rate of bike miles traveled pre and post but we do not have that data.
That is a bit of cherry-picking data if you are not acknowledging the number of cars taking alternate routes and the accidents on the side streets and Eighth Street. But I will certainly accept that it does help explain the almost doubling of accidents on Fifth Street.
Whaa?? Cherry picking data? It is a straightforward rate. Doubling of “accidents” (crashes please) on 5th? Where does that data come from. Even raw numbers do not support that. Seriously, where do you get doubling? Total crashes (raw numbers) car/car in the corridor pre: 16; post: 19. Rates: 3.5 per MILLION (yes million) miles driven pre, 5.4 per MILLION miles driven post.
I think I originally wrote “nearly doubling” which is a bit of an embellishment since it is ONLY a 35% increase.
Given that the primary justification for the road diet was to improve bike safety, it is clear that the project has failed on this justification.
Robb’s right on this. His take on the data is as good as we are going to get without more and better data. A study that included at least eighth through 1st street might tell us more, but only if we had comparable previous data to compare it to.
Read my rates again: biking is NO LESS safe now than before. There is a suggestion looking at rates that it is safer. Frankly, I am not trying to sound condescending here but you do understand rates versus raw numbers, right? 1200 extra bikes are entering the corridor in the morning and afternoon times observed. 2.8 crashes per 1000 bikes entering before, 2.6 crashes per 1000 bikes post. What is so hard here?
Robb:
Just wondering what your thoughts are, regarding the possible impact of Sterling on that corridor.
In general, do you think that housing students on campus reduces the overall risk/impact, for everyone?
As for the first question, Peter Jacobson has done a few analyses that suggest that there is “safety in numbers,” meaning that more riders make street segments safer. The hypothesis is that more cyclists create greater awareness by car drivers. So, one could hypothesize that adding students from Sterling would make the segment safer for all cyclists (and perhaps safer still if the east end of Fifth St. (L to Pole Line) is restripesd as planned).
As to your second question, by definition, if bikes and cars never mix there can be no risk of car/bike crashes. Is your question about cycling safety or about the University housing a greater proportion of students? If the latter, I am very MUCH in favor of UCD housing more students. However, since UCD will never house all UCD students, and a significant proportion of UCD students commute to UCD by bike, there will always be car/cycle interactions. Our goal should be to reduce the risk of car/bike collisions, AND the risk of serious injury in case of a collision. That is why I am gratified to see the critical speed reduced along the corridor. Reducing lane widths between Pole Line and L and adding more cyclists could help achieve lower critical speeds and thus, less serious injury in the case of a collision.
I will also note that the segment Pole Line to L is VERY different from the segment L to A–and not just because of distance. Pole Line to L has a few driveways on the north side and fewer on the south (I believe). However, there are NO streets crossing Fifth in that segment. In contrast, L to A has 10 (if I am counting right) intersections. Since most cashes of all types occur at intersections, one would expect the Pole Line to L segment to have even fewer crashes per X distance (per bike entering the segment) than the segment L to A.
Thanks, Robb. I appreciate the response.
Regarding the hypothesis, perhaps so. (Not sure.) Of course, that wouldn’t necessarily account for large masses of bicyclists moving at different speeds, passing each other, and possibly entering the remaining/reduced traffic lanes, etc. in a hazardous manner. (Not sure of the numbers, but have heard upwards of 1,000 bicyclists from Sterling.) Not to pick on Don Shor, but if he and other businesses are also double-parking trucks in bike lanes, it won’t help the situation. I only mention this because I recall that Don recently mentioned that he would (apparently?) still be allowed to double-park trucks serving his business, under the new plan.
Many students are not “experienced” bicyclists, and some do not ride in a safe manner (for themselves, or others).
Heavy bicycle traffic will also be a factor at driveways (such as the primary post office driveway, right next door to the development).
I briefly looked at the EIR, and found that (per city policy) it doesn’t even address intersections in the “core area” along the Fifth Street corridor (which are already at level F, I believe).
Although I strongly believe that we should take all reasonable steps to encourage the use of bicycles, I (and others) also drive automobiles. And, it seems that the “road diet” (lane reduction) is not able to handle existing capacity, at peak times.
If Sterling is also added into that mix, I’m pretty sure that the situation will become even more challenging, to say the least. In any case, bicyclists certainly do impact intersections, as does any traffic. (Note that Sterling would generate significant auto traffic, as well.)
In the meantime, I appreciate any/all efforts you make, to encourage the University to assume responsibility for its planned enrollment. Seems like you agree that this provides the safest, least-impactful alternative for the bulk of new housing intended for students.
So Robb, are you saying that the VG lied here?
The number of collisions per million vehicle miles increased by 35%.
And so you are changing the measurement to the number of bikes.
Slick.
Except that there have been more collisions.
More collisions sounds like a bad thing, don’t you agree?
didn’t the vanguard simply pull the numbers from the staff report?
So it went up notably if measured against the number of car miles, and went down a slight bit of measured against the number of bikes using the road. Robb chooses the second metric… which is fine because he is a bike fanatic and I would expect it… but then attacks me because I am just quoting what the VG posted… which is not.
The analogy is that there is a very large enclosed area that is filled full of lions and their prey and a number of bike riders traveling through. And some of the bike riders get attacked by some of the lions.
So we implement the “area diet plan” that reduces the number of lions and increases the number of bikers… and there are 35% more lion attacks of bikers, but since the ratio of lion attacks to bikers is a slightly bit lower, we are okay with that.
Really. That is the defense?
Frankly.. re-read your analogy… failure… stick to facts and/or opinions… you are ‘better’ in those… and I’m not “lion”…
I discussed both auto/auto and auto/bike in my responses above Frankly. I am not accusing David of lying. I am saying that there are car/bike collisions and car/car collisions. The rate of the latter has gone up. The rate of the former has gone down a bit. There is nothing “slick” here: two different types of collisions, two rates. One has gone up, one has not.
More is absolutely NOT a bad thing if the rate of occurrence goes down. If I live in a town of 50 with 2 whooping cough cases per year and a town of 50,000 with 20 cases per year, I am less concerned in the latter than in the former. This is why we use rates.
I will note that this segment appears to be above the national average for urban arterial automobile crashes from a rapid search of the internet, but I would need to see if the rates are leveling off or declining after an initial spike. I will ask staff to provide information on dates of auto crashes.
Robb… don’t pursue national urban collisions rates… too many variables, as in ice/snow, etc. Also, ~ 70 k population, “urban” can be a ‘squishy’ term in reporting… waste of time for you and/or staff… like municipalities in CA fine, but don’t go to the ‘national’ thing…
That is incorrect. The lion/lion attacks are up 54% (3.5 to 5.4 per million miles driven). The lion/biker attacks are down (if you accept my rate as a valid means to measure this–collisions per 1000 bike entering the corridor) by 5% (2.8 to 2.6 per 1000 bikes entering the the corridor).
LOL. I concede that this is completely accurate. I messed up on my calculator. You know I make loans for a living… no need to use exact math.
(joke)
But I am still of the mind that there is less than positive news here. We attracted more bikers into the lions’ den.
Thanks hpierce. It would seem to me that the 5th street auto collision rates are high though. However, as I noted, there are a LOT of intersections crammed into that corridor (especially from A to G).
ALL of which will be further impacted if Sterling is approved. (I’ll try not to repeat myself, but it seems that the city is determined to make that occur.)
Clarification – “that” does not refer to “repeating myself”, but I suppose it could have.
If any housing development is approved it might increase traffic.
If no housing developments are approved traffic will increase.
If not another drop of oil is burned the earth will still warm.
If somebody/anybody provides all the information needed to prove that a development project is good for the city, you will still be opposed.
Frankly:
The point is that housing on campus doesn’t require a daily commute, through the city, along a busy corridor. You’ve brought up concerns about this corridor, yourself (see your comments above).
If you can’t see the connection between the increased traffic resulting from Sterling on the section that you brought up (above), combined with the impact of additional planned roadway narrowing, I don’t know what else to say.
Also, there’s this from you (above), regarding this same corridor:
Don’t know about your numbers, but perhaps you’ve already acknowledged the point I was making.
Perhaps I do know “what else to say”:
If Sterling is approved, it will essentially require further road narrowing (additional elimination of auto traffic lanes along Fifth), to accommodate heavy bicycle traffic from Sterling. I realize that there are (tentative?) plans to eliminate these traffic lanes. However, since this would primarily accommodate Sterling, it seems that the development should pay a share of the cost up-front (assuming that the property is rezoned to accommodate the development).