Do I know that the Fifth Street redesign will work? I will admit, I do not have a crystal ball, and I do not know if the redesign will work. What I do know is that the current configuration does not work.
I know that I have sat in my idling car at F Street at 5 in the morning with no cars in sight and waited a full two minutes for the lights to cycle through before learning if I turn on E Street right after the fire station and cut down Fourth, I can avoid the lights and get to my destination faster.
I know that bicycles are a hazard, people crossing the street do so at their own risk, and cars drive too fast and swerve around bikes and turning vehicles unpredictably. And I know the statistics that show it is a risk intersection.
So for five or six years now, I have been in favor of changing the current set up and trying something else.
People who know this topic far better than I do believe this is workable. I sat through a presentation in March of 2009 by Dan Burden who showed us the art of the possible – that this model has worked in other communities.
His demonstrations showed that in other communities, putting streets on a road diet did not hurt business. In fact, it made the streets more friendly for business because they served a whole range of needs rather than simply one, and it did it safer and more efficiently.
The take-home points are that the roads can service the same number of vehicles with two lanes as they can with four. That seems counterintuitive, but the proof is in the streets that have undergone the process before. The key is how you deal with the intersections rather than how many lanes you have. Moreover, it can be done safer and more efficiently.
But the idea has its naysayers – naysayers who see it as counterintuitive that shrinking the number of lanes may improve the flow by avoiding each of the hazards I described above.
Bob Dunning, for example, cites his friend “Ken,” who called the road diet “a really stupid idea.”
“He’s not alone in his thinking,” he said.
“Several ‘No Bike Riding’ signs would solve the problem,” Mr. Dunning writes.
There are, of course, several problems with that comment.
First, you cannot prohibit bicycles on city streets. Under California Vehicle Code Section 21960, state law allows, in areas in which “vehicle access is completely or partially controlled,” local jurisdictions to “prohibit or restrict the use of the freeways, expressways, or any portion thereof by pedestrians, bicycles or other nonmotorized traffic.”
But it must be on freeways or expressways. The provision does not allow cities or local jurisdictions to restrict access to bicycles under other conditions.
So what “Ken,” and Mr. Dunning by extension, seem to espouse, is in fact not in accordance with state law.
Even if it were, the problem is not bicyclists. Given the sheer number of bicycle users in Davis, the frequency with which someone encounters a bicyclist who dares to brave the Fifth Street Corridor from A Street to L Street is quite rare.
The Fifth Street redesign is not about bicyclists per se, it is about the total road conditions which represent a hazard and have unnecessary delays. Flow improvement models suggest that, with a reduction in lanes, with turn pockets and a better signalized intersection, we can actually improve flow, even as the traffic itself moves more slowly.
“Ken” adds, “There are bike paths all over the place, so no need to put bikes on Fifth to run stop signs and signals.”
There may be bike paths all over the place, but it is weird that the main east-west route through the middle of town would preclude, or at least be unfriendly to, bikes. We are a platinum bicycle community. We house the National Bicycling Hall of Fame just two blocks from 5th and B.
And yet, we ask bicyclists traveling to the east to divert south two blocks, drive through Third Street (where many will run the stop signs at every block), and then divert back two blocks to the north at L Street to get on the bike path at that point.
This town definitely has some weird identity issues. We want to be the bike capital of the nation and we don’t want bikes to have access to key city streets.
“Ken” continues by opining, “City Council will regret this one. It’ll be back to four lanes in less than two years, and the return will be expensive, too”.
They may regret the move – it is why it is a pilot project and the set up for it is relatively easy to change back if it doesn’t work. But how does Ken know it won’t work? It has worked in other communities and the city has studied traffic models for years.
“Ken” may ultimately prove to be right here, but he certainly is not in a better position to know than the many folks who have studied the issue over time.
The one thing I do know is, if this solution does not work, we will have to find another fix here, because this is not a solution in search of a problem, it’s a problem that desperately needs a solution. And, given the design and configuration of the corridor, the city is limited in terms of what it can do.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The take-home points are that the roads can service the same number of vehicles with two lanes as they can with four.”[/i]
I too do not [u]know[/u] whether the redesign will work. One thing I do know is that the naysayers do not know it won’t won’t work. All they have is opinions on the subject.
With that said, lets examine your statement above while looking at the article’s graphic. What is very clear is that there aren’t two automobile lanes, there are three. So your statement would be more accurate if you said, [i]”the roads can service the same number of vehicles with three lanes as they can with four.[/i]
Actually, that revised statement isn’t really correct, because as it is now, 5th Street forces bicycles and cars to share lanes. I was in the right lane yesterday with a bicycle just ahead of me and because all the cars in the left lane were at a full stop because one car needed to turn left onto G street, I had to simply follow along at bicycle speed, not only through the G Street intersection, but also through the F Street intersection, which was in the identically same situation . . . one car waiting to turn left with six cars backed up at a stop behind it. Finally, when the bicycle passed F Street was I able to have enough room to safely pass and proceed onward. In the redesign, there really will be five vehicle lanes instead of four, and 1) that bicycle will not have to share a lane with cars, and 2) all those “left lane cars” wanting to proceed through on 5th Street will stay in the right automobile lane and never find their progress impeded by a left turning car in that lane.
Disclaimer, I do not ride a bicycle in or around Davis.
It may not cause trips to take longer (I personally think it will, especially when considering the time for crossing and for making left turns off of Fifth), but, it will absolutely give the perception of making trips longer. And, because of these things, it will change driving habits, thereby trading one set of problems for another.
I am 50/50. I would be completely against this road diet plan if not for the regular proof that our species has lost all natural survival instincts as slow-peddling people ride up and down fifth without any apparent consideration that their lives hang in the balance. If not for the fact that the majority of these arguments against Darwinism are young people, I might consider that we are making a long-view mistake ripping out and redesigning our roads to help protect them from their own bad judgment.
There is one glaring problem ignored by the proponents and pushers of this road diet plan… it is the fact that Davis has attempted, with limited success IMO, to pack most of its retail into the core downtown. This means that the city designers have been forcing the majority of the population that lives outside of the core area into our cars traveling into the core area. Fifth street is a major auto artery into and out of the core area.
I can’t say for sure how this change will impact the driving and shopping habits of other residents, but for me, adding another minute to the existing number of excessive minutes it takes for me to drive from West Davis to downtown, will cause me to decrease the number of trips I make… and hence more of the retail tax revenue I would provide Davis will leak to surrounding communities.
Davis is experiencing a mid-life identity crises. Our planning is schizophrenic because we having not honestly admitted that our interests are in complete conflict and our direction is leading us to unsustainable results. UCD’s past growth combined it’s planned expansion is an inconvenient truth against the wishes of those that believe Davis can remain a sleepy little farm town stuffed with academics. We HAVE to see ourselves as something a little bigger and more resembling other towns with similar circumstances. It is time to grow up Davis and put on our big boy pants. Develop some periphery business and retail so that residents do not have to all stuff themselves down a few bike-infested roads all heading into and out of the core area.
Frankly,
You say it might change driving habits – it already does. I avoid Fifth Street. I’ll cut through the residential neighborhoods, cut up to eighth street, etc. Why? The current set up.
Is the center lane going to look like the picture or will it be curbed turnouts?
David, so you think that the road diet plan will make Fifth Street more attractive to divers? Maybe, but I remain skeptical.
GI: turn pockets not like the photo.
Frankly: Like I said, I don’t know. All I know is right now it couldn’t be set up more poorly.
It will probably make the road safer for bikes and pedestrians, which I consider to be the primary purpose. It may slow down auto traffic a bit, but I expect people will get used to it. As to the perception, it might make a slight difference. I doubt if merchants will see noticeable adverse impact once it’s done. During the construction it isn’t going to be much fun for Hibbert or other retailer along Fifth, so let’s get this done as fast as possible.
As to ‘It’ll be back to four lanes in less than two years’ — I doubt that is even possible, much less likely. So I hope there is some provision for monitoring unanticipated effects on side roads and dealing with that somehow.
[quote]Our planning is schizophrenic [/quote]
Actually, our planning is quite coherent and based on firmly stated goals. You just disagree with those goals and the policies.
To add to Don’s point, how is Fifth Street as currently designed coherent with the community’s planning principles?
[i]how is Fifth Street as currently designed coherent with the community’s planning principles?[/i]
Everybody needs to drive downtown to purchase their building and landscaping materials for one. So, two lanes of auto traffic makes sense.
I remain skeptical that the road diet plan will increase throughput and decrease travel time for autos. It will improve safety for bikes and pedestrians… those shoppers that do not tend to purchase landscaping and building materials… and other products downtown that require a car or truck.
Traffic problems are generally caused by people turning right against pedestrians, left against oncoming traffic, and people trying to parallel parking. Two lanes with a shared turn lane and bike lanes, turn pockets, and no parking (or angled parking) and lights on sensors with staggered pedestrian crossing indicators are the only decent solutions that doesn’t involve condemnation by eminent domain (I know y’all are phobic of that here). The problems may not be the solution, but the implementation. Cutting corners could seriously jeopardize the success of the program, even if the solution is the best in theory.
“for me, adding another minute to the existing number of excessive minutes it takes for me to drive from West Davis to downtown, will cause me to decrease the number of trips I make… and hence more of the retail tax revenue I would provide Davis will leak to surrounding communities. “
This may be true for some shoppers. However, I do not see decreasing the number of separate trips as being synonymous with more leakage of tax revenue to surrounding communities. Perhaps some shoppers will plan their trips more strategically buying more items during a single trip rather than on multiple trips. This would be a clear win in terms of automobile emissions. Others who currently make some of their trips by car, might choose to make more by bike if it were perceived as safer. A win for air quality and personal health through increased exercise.
Maybe some of our merchants who sell bulky items could consider delivery. There are too many variables here to know if this is the best solution,
But I do think it is a worthwhile attempt at managing a very risky area of our town for pedestrians, bikes, and drivers alike.
[quote]d waited a full two minutes for the lights to cycle[/quote]
How many millions of dollars do we have to waste to avoid a two minute wait?
While i think the total project comes in at less than $2 mil, most of which is grant money, a question you don’t ask is is just as meaningful, how much gas have we wasted over the years on that two minute wait?
Medwoman makes a good point, “Others who currently make some of their trips by car, might choose to make more by bike if it were perceived as safer.”
I tend to avoid the downtown area when possible because parking has become so difficult. With a safer and convienant biking option I’d be willing to ride bikes downtown with my kids.
So, others might ditch the car and ride a bike because 5th street is deemed safer for bikes? And rainbows will sprout spontaneously from the sky to bask Davis in a colorful glow of social and environmental righteousness.
So, where might I strap on that sheet of wallboard, or that piece of trim or those 1 gallon plants and a bag of mulch?
Did you ever consider that people riding bikes to the downtown means that they will purchase less?
There is tremendous absurdity in the arguments of those that demand we make the downtown more bike-friendly and less car-friendly while also demanding that we protect the downtown from the competition from more peripheral retail. It demonstrates something that I consider not too flattering… either an inability to connect the dots in their arguments, or hidden agendas.
“Did you ever consider that people riding bikes to the downtown means that they will purchase less?”
how often do you purchase large items from the downtown?
Matt Williams: You should try riding a bike more. It’s good exercise for us over-60 types even with Frankly’s “car-infested” roads. By the way, I also drive downtown for things like lumber, bulky items, when it’s raining or I’m just too lazy to bike. I’m not all that concerned about “safety” since I am a defensive driver. I am far more likely to make a decision to ride by bike based on how pleasant I imagine the experience may be on a given day. To ride home from a downtown location (I live just west of Mace Ranch near Covell Blvd.) I have to decide where I want to cross 5th Street. The 5th and G and the 5th and L intersections are both safe places to do so, but that keeps me from taking the more scenic routes through Bob Dunning’s neighborhood. That may not change with the 5th Street plan design, but it may make the overall experience better and I’m not at all concerned with an extra minute or two in the car.
[i]how often do you purchase large items from the downtown?[/i]
I am laughing.
Think about that question.
Are you suggesting that people don’t purchase large items or numerous items from downtown?
Should I limit my purchased to only things that I can fit in a backpack or bike basket?
Why go downtown if not to purchase things? Why even ride a bike downtown? Would it not be better to just ride out through a park into the beautiful innovation-park-less countryside?
If you are going to suggest that Davis’s downtown is primarily a destination for food and entertainment, then I am with you. But that is not what we are hearing from the planners and deciders… they are pitching Davis’s downtown as the full-service destination for all of Davis residents’ shopping needs.
It is that cake-and-eat-it-too thing that identifies a person as either being too greedy in their demands, or else clueless as to the obvious conflicts in their positions.
Question, since this road-diet design incorporates curbed-turnouts instead of the more ubiquitous left-turn center lanes (I assume to give pedestrians and the neighborhood squirrels the ability to safely cross one traffic lane at a time), when the number of cars or trucks needing to make a left turn exceeds length of the turnout, will that not block Fifth Street traffic flow for auto stacked up behind them?
Of course the bikes will freely flow.
“for me, adding another minute to the existing number of excessive minutes it takes for me to drive from West Davis to downtown, will cause me to decrease the number of trips I make… and hence more of the retail tax revenue I would provide Davis will leak to surrounding communities. “
Frankly, slow down. Take time to smell the roses. Enjoy life.It will all pass so quickly. One minute of waiting won’t kill you. Impatience, not living in the present, will add years to your life. When you are in Europe, people eat fatty foods, drink wine, but they live longer. They mingle with each other at the grocery store. They chat. They smile. They walk to the store several times a week & take a small bag of fresh produce home with them. They don’t go to Costco once a month & freeze all their meat. They’ve learned to slow down, enjoy life. In Amsterdam, bivycles, pedestrians, cars, trains, buses co-exist. I bet their life expectancy is longer than ours. I know their quality of life seems better. Slow down. Wait a minute. It’s okay.
I would rather take longer to drive to a small, friendly community that still has a few small businesses than arrive faster and be in Natomas. My selection there would be Mimi’s, Starbucks, Walmart, Target, Appellbees, and Bev Mo.
JimmysDaughter, I think you are talking about vacation time. I take vacations. But I don’t know many people that like to take longer than necessary to do their shopping when they lead busy lives working at making a living.
And I think you must live in or around the core area. It takes me 15 minutes to ride a bike downtown, and over half an hour to walk. It is an exclusive club living in and around the core area. We should all be that lucky.
Frankly, let me interpret JimmysDaughter for you: please stop whining.
davehart, please participate when you have something useful to contribute to the conversation. I recommend this to all the kids I know… just stop talking when you have nothing to say.
[i] would rather take longer to drive to a small, friendly community that still has a few small businesses than arrive faster and be in Natomas. My selection there would be Mimi’s, Starbucks, Walmart, Target, Appellbees, and Bev Mo.[/i]
Good for you JimmysDaugher. What do you do for a living? It seems that you have more time on your hands. Do you work for the government?
Or, do you have other things that you like to do with your time rather than driving longer and spending more time having to go to several stores to get what you need to shop for? If not, you are unique.
Also, there are many things that you cannot purchase in Davis, so you HAVE To drive to places like Natomas.
But, I hear the point that you are making, and I thank you for your honesty and directness (I wish other would do the same). But, you cannot also leave out the problems this presents for many residents. You are only one of many. And I am guessing that you live an and around the core area.
By the way, I would love a BevMo. I spend a lot of money at the one in Natomas during their 5 cent sales.
Frankly: My comment about the whining is arguable the most useful thing posted on this issue. Most of the comments that are critical of the project for 5th street are focusing on insignificant concerns of things like an extra two or three minutes (maybe, nobody really knows) to get to a business downtown or are complaining about bicycles (those zero emission vehicles we should be encouraging) or about parking that the project has nothing to do with or about how this will destroy businesses and drive people to Natomas. That last complaint is crazy if you think the extra two or three minutes will cause people to drive and extra half-hour or more to go to Natomas. So far, your participation has been most unuseful.
davehart, I think you don’t understand much about the convenience factor with respect to retail. Read up on Amazon.com to start your education.
Yes, a few minutes matters. Adding time to shopping trips matters a great deal.
Customers will gravitate to a location based on the following four critera:
1. Does or will the location have the product(s) needed or desired?
On this Davis gets low marks since there a lot of things we cannot purchase in this town, and brands and options are limited.
2. Can it be purchased for a good price?
Again, Davis gets low marks since the lack of competition tends to allow Davis merchants to charge a premium. Go buy shoes in Davis if you disagree.
3. Vibe.
Here Davis has an edge to some places. Although I argue, and others do too, that the Davis downtown is quite shabby and not very appealing to suit many shopper’s tastes.
4. Convenience.
For this, Davis sucks. And the Fifth Street road diet will make it suck more.
[quote]With that said, lets examine your statement above while looking at the article’s graphic. What is very clear is that there aren’t two automobile lanes, there are three. So your statement would be more accurate if you said, “the roads can service the same number of vehicles with three lanes as they can with four.[/quote]
[quote]Question, since this road-diet design incorporates curbed-turnouts instead of the more ubiquitous left-turn center lanes (I assume to give pedestrians and the neighborhood squirrels the ability to safely cross one traffic lane at a time), when the number of cars or trucks needing to make a left turn exceeds length of the turnout, will that not block Fifth Street traffic flow for auto stacked up behind them? [/quote]
I think these two points are what make me think the redesign won’t help cars (but will be great for bikes).
Imagine westbound Russell at Anderson, and westbound Covell at Pole Line, where several cars turn left/north exceeding the length of the curbed turnout. Those cars constantly back up the left lanes on Russell and Covell, but traffic still moves because there is a second lane to allow cars to get around the back-up. Without that second lane, traffic would be horrendous.
If that second lane were gone, but the curbed turnout was instead a left-turn center lane (like the above picture), traffic could flow again. This is what it looks like on southbound Pole Line at 5th Street — tons of cars line up to turn left/west at 5th, but because they’re in the left-turn center lane, others can continue past them on Pole Line.
Similarly, with the curbed turn-out and a single traffic lane, there will be a huge back-up any time a vehicle tries to turn right and needs to wait for a pedestrian or bike to cross. With a left-turn center lane (like the above picture), other cars could go around the right-turning car by passing slightly through the center lane. Not sure if that would be a legal move, though.
Did the Redesign designers consider the left-turn center lane instead of the curbed turn-outs?
Frankly, your criticisms of downtown Davis’ ability to compete based on product range and prices seems to me to be totally independent of the 5th street project and provide a better analysis for why people might buy online. For every person who simply MUST drive downtown, there will be at least one person who will now bike to take their place so the net difference is zero. I just don’t think the 5th Street project will tip the balance significantly. That’s what I believe and beliefs always trump someone else’s ‘facts’. I will acknowledge I am wrong if and when I see actual data.
[i]I will acknowledge I am wrong if and when I see actual data.[/i]
Me too.
At this point it is all just conjecture estimating impacts. Like I wrote, I am 50/50 and playing devils advocate for some negative impacts that might be ignored. Maybe I am unique, but convenience is a top consideration for me. The most valuable thing I own is my time, and I don’t like to waste it. Shopping is not something I go do for pleasure, it is a chore. And the quicker I can get done with my chores the better.
I get the sense that there are a number of posters on this topic that don’t value their time as much, or else have more of it to spend. Note that I am not unduly stressed with my time constraints, it is just life as I know it.
If the road diet plan adds another minute or two too my drive downtown, it will cause me to decide to seek alternatives. Those alternatives might be online shopping, or shopping in another community. If there are few residents in Davis that value their time like I do, then the downtown merchants would not suffer any lost business. My guess that there are enough people valuing their time like me, and there will be some negative impact on downtown sales… if there is even a perception that driving and/or parking downtown is any more difficult.