From the start, one of the points the Vanguard has made is that, most of the time, Mace Boulevard traffic is not heavily impacted by changes made to the roadway. Instead, many believe the biggest impacts have more to do with traffic patterns along I-80 and traffic apps re-routing traffic to bypass I-80 and drive up Mace Blvd.
But there are signs that may be changing. A few weeks ago, we were stuck in traffic for about 25 minutes driving south from Harper Junior High past I-80, and it was backed up until we got past the on-ramps on the Mace overpass.
However, during the week of spring break, Chief Darren Pytel told the Vanguard the traffic was smooth sailing, even during the troublesome evening commutes on Thursday and Friday.
“Last week was really not representative of a normal week because the schools were out,” he explained. “I sent an officer out there on Thursday and Friday night which was the reported worst time, and traffic was smooth sailing.”
That was not a representative week, he said: “We realize that.”
The biggest problem times are Thursday and Friday during peak hours, as most people have been aware. The traffic starts as early as 3 pm and goes as late as 7:30 or 8 pm.
Using mapping technology, “You can definitely see Mace, Chiles, and Cowell pretty severely impacted by what appears to be freeway traffic during these times,” he explained. “Most of the other days
in the week, you can kind of get through.”
Monday, he said, is really good, then it picks up on Tuesday and Wednesday. “Thursday is actually some of the worst traffic,” he said. “It appears that a lot of the UCD students and staff, who are leaving town, are leaving on Thursdays because traffic really backs up coming off campus.”
But when we drove back through the normally troublesome intersection of Mace and Cowell last Friday just after 5 pm, the traffic was almost normal. Others we spoke to had similar experiences.
Part of this may be cyclical – not linked in to anything to do with changes to the roadway.
Back in the winter of 2017, for example, there were similar road back ups on I-80. That led to a huge traffic mess in the southeastern portion of town, as traffic was being re-routed off I-80 to attempt to avoid the I-80 bottleneck. But it was not the lasting state of affairs – once the rains stopped and the season changed, traffic patterns went back to normal.
The difference then from now is that back then there was no concurrent road construction to either add to problems, or perhaps to appear to be the problem.
Some have concluded from this that the problem was the lack of the signal lights at the Mace-Cowell intersection. While that didn’t help things, it doesn’t explain problems from two weeks ago, when the signal lights were fully functional and yet the back ups were still occurring.
Based strictly on observation, it would seem that something has changed with the traffic patterns on I-80 or even the apps re-routing the traffic onto Mace. It would behoove the city to find out for sure – because this pattern has repeated in the past and if it went away before, only to return, it is bound to repeat in the future.
Some of the fixes that Chief Pytel suggested would seem to apply, regardless of the current conditions.
Chief Pytel told the Vanguard that the city has contacted Caltrans to figure out ways to deal with the on-ramps so that “more cars can be queued on the on-ramps, which will hopefully reduce the number of cars queued on Mace Blvd. and Chiles, which is really where the fundamental thing is creating the issues with the gridlock out there.
“There’s not much we can do about all the traffic apps re-routing traffic,” he said. “They’re basic algorithms and they’re public roads so we can’t really stop people from using them.
“We think the key is trying to reduce the cars queuing on Mace Blvd. and Chiles and hopefully that should alleviate some of the gridlock,” he said. “So at least all the local people can get to other streets and around the area.”
That seems to be a reasonable approach. Once again, I don’t favor going back to the way things were as some are demanding. However, both Chief Pytel and others with the city believe there is room along Mace to address the problems without going back to the way things were.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The headline says “issues should be addressed” by neglects to say what those actual issues are.
The article is woefully lacking in details. For example, when did the City start operating the signal lights and switch from the 4-way stop mode? Were there tweaks made in the timing of the lights since they went into operation?
Why does the Vanguard believe that traffic problems they describe from a few weeks ago on southbound Mace occurred because of the construction, when the problems were described as clearing up once past the entrance ramps to I-80? Isn’t that just a function of congestion on 80?
Rik, I live just off Mace south of the construction, and make several trips up and down the Mace corridor every day. So this answer is based on active experience. I do not believe anyone kept records of the details you asked about. Further, the sequencing of construction events meant that the date you asked about may be meaningless because the switch from four-way stop signs over to the operation of the traffic lights was not binary. Initially the traffic lights were in flashing mode, then they went into normal (although badly timed) operation, then back to flashing mode, then (if my memory serves me) back to operation (with better timing), then to flashing, and finally to its current state of normal operation. So, yes there were tweaks made in the timing of the lights, and I expect there will be more.
The article does not say that the traffic problems from a few weeks ago on southbound Mace occurred because of the construction. You inferred that erroneously from what is written. (Note: that paragraph added nothing to the article. One could argue that deleting that paragraph would not hurt the article at all). My personal belief is that the southbound Mace congestion is almost completely a function of the backup on the eastbound cloverleaf I-80 on ramp.
Bottom-line, the issues for the reconstructed Mace corridor are very different southbound than they are northbound. Going to three vehicle thru traffic lanes (two northbound and one southbound) may be the most viable alternative. Accomplishing that “middle ground” would require cooperation/collaboration between the City, County and Federal governments.
A long term solution to the I-80 congestion issues at both of the I-80 eastbound ramps will require cooperation/collaboration between the City, State and Federal governments, and will be part of a multi-million dollar free-standing project of its own . . . wholly and completely separate from what is being dealt with now.
Matt: thanks for the detailed comments. You say “Bottom-line, the issues for the reconstructed Mace corridor are very different southbound than they are northbound.” From my (limited) observation this seems to be true. However, I brought this issue up because Greenwald keeps mentioning his personal experience on southbound Mace in multiple articles on construction delays and so is either conflating the two or needlessly muddying the waters.
It is also noted that Greenwald summarily dismissed a comment I had made (and also didn’t attribute it or accurately & completely summarize it, but that’s an issue for another comment…) that any problems on northbound Mace seem to have gone away at some point since the Mace/Cowell intersection was signalized: “Some have concluded from this that the problem was the lack of the signal lights at the Mace-Cowell intersection. While that didn’t help things, it doesn’t explain problems from two weeks ago, when the signal lights were fully functional and yet the back ups were still occurring.”
Based on your information, the situation with the traffic signals is not as simple as saying they were fully in operation two weeks ago as they are now. I would expect a journalist who has written many articles on this issue in the past few weeks to dig a bit deeper into the story.
Rik, as if to emphasize my point, the gods have decreed that today the traffic lights are in 4-way flashing red mode again. So, until those traffic lights stay in normal operation mode, we will be speculating, at best.
Regarding the final sentence in your first paragraph, muddying not conflating.
Moderator: comment edited
Matt Williams said: “as if to emphasize my point, the gods have decreed that today the traffic lights are in 4-way flashing red mode again. So, until those traffic lights stay in normal operation mode, we will be speculating, at best.”
Interesting! Here’s a compilation of my comments on Friday’s article (yes, I am apparently the anonymous somebody that Greenwald refers to in today’s article that “Some have concluded…”; note that my actual “conclusions” are couched with caveats and that these was based on a limited observations, and that I was soliciting other information form people that might contradict these–none of which Greenwald mentioned).
If indeed Google Maps represents on-the-ground travel times accurately, It is relatively easy to monitor those. We could correlate those to your experience today, for example.
Moderator: comment edited
Mart Williams: I don’t know whether the signal lights at Mace & Cowell were in flashing four-way stop mode the entire day yesterday, but monitoring Google Maps in the late afternoon/early evening from 4PM to 6PM, the trip time from El Macero CC to the Taco Bell on Chiles Road via S. Macero Dr. never exceeded 6 minutes, or about a 1-minute delay from free flow traffic conditions, and most of the time there was minimal to no delay shown.
“The sky is the limit. You never have the same experience twice.”
— Frank McCourt
Except when I read this article in the Vanguard this morning.
δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης. (You could not step twice into the same river.) — Heraclitus (c. 500 BCE)
Yes, one wonders why Greenwald used the exact same quotes from Chief Pytel as he did in an article last week, and not add anything new of substance.