By Alan Hirsch
On Thursday Caltrans will hold a workshop on the future of the I-80 corridor, Davis’s Connection to rest of the World.
It will be at the Blanchard Room of the Library at 6;30pm.
Caltrans will be considering different options to deal with transportation demand in this corridor.
Will they just address only through-traffic, i.e. Tahoe Snowbird? …or real needs of people who live in the corridor, for example, transit needs that can’t be met by slow, limited-stop and expensive Capitol Corridor Train service or the anemic and unreliable Yolobus service.
If you care about traffic on Mace Blvd…or how we can have accommodated economic growth in Davis – like the proposed 12,000 (!!!) trip a day Aggie business park on Mace curve – this is the meeting to go to.
Some Questions:
- Will they build something that will encourage for single occupancy Car to come into.. and flow out of Davis by simply widening the Freeway—i.e. facilitating more Bay Area-based Tahoe
Snowbirds to burn up the planet as they drive to ever-decreasing Sierra snowpack?
OR: - Will they build facilities to encourage more and faster Davis and Yolo County Transit commuter in and out of Davis, West Sac, Dixon and Sacramento?
- Will they delay solutions by restricting themselves to studying only expensive Causeway widening options that will be 10 to 15 years to fund?
OR: - Will they use the SF-Bay Bridge Solution: Install cheap “queue jump” lanes alongside I80 before the causeway so buses HOV 4+ “real carpools” get to drive about the back up to get on the causeway, i.e encourage transit riders by giving them a faster-than-drive-alone trip?
- Will they use “rush-hour only” HOV lanes?
OR: - Will they make time HOV/Bus lanes 24 x 7 to reflect Tahoe rush hours?
Please show up if you care about Davis growth and traffic…or the future of the planet. Or better transit service to Sacramento in your lifetime.
Caltrans Seeks Public Feedback on Yolo County Interstate 80 Project
Improvements between Davis and Sacramento
Thursday, November 21
6:30 PM – 7:30 PM
Mary L Stephens Davis Library
Blanchard Room
315 E 14th St.
Davis, CA 95616
A community open house is held to inform the public about a Yolo County Interstate 80 project with key improvements to I-80 from Kidwell Road just west of Davis to West El Camino Avenue, including U.S. Highway 50 to the Interstate 5 Interchange in Sacramento. This open house encourages input from stakeholders and the community. Community members can learn more about the project and share their preferences and concerns with the project team.
Details about the project can be found at the Caltrans website.
Thanks to Measure R, Davis has a choice regarding whether or not a 12,000-trip/day development (with 4,340 parking spaces) needs to be “accommodated” in the first place.
Some would like to take away the ability of residents to make such choices.
As a resident for 45 years, I wouldn’t mind… but some who are not residents highly defend the concept. Go figure…
Some assume that they know something about others, and attempt to “out” them on here based upon that assumption.
Sometimes, they’re the same ones who are costing the city tons of money, via overly-generous pensions that they try to hide, and which enable them to spend inordinate, unproductive amounts of time on blogs creating “online enemies” with those that they disagree with.
Given the nasty nature of some of their comments (but only toward those that they disagree with), one wonders if their own families are glad that they’re pre-occupied with this blog, to an unhealthy degree. At least they’re not bothering their own families during those times.
What are you talking about?
Who are you talking about?
I have noted that some who have clearly indicated that they do not live in Davis, support Measure R (look @ back issues/posts) because they feel a restrained market is good for their “investment” in rental properties… look at the list of financial contributors to past Measure R enactment, and note where they reside…
Do not understand your most recent post.
But there did seem to be a hint of a personal attack in that post… but am not reporting it as such, as you are unclear as to what you are speaking to, and are unclear as to whom it is directed. No harm, no foul…
I am clearly on record as opposing a renewal of Measure R, as written; I am clearly on record as being a 32+ year employee of the City (and my retirement status, compensation is on Transparent California); and I’ve been clear that I currently reside in Davis, have for 45+ years.
So, no one can “out me” on those matters.
It would be near the height of narcissism to think I aimed my comment at you, personally…
For all I know, you reside in Davis.
O.K. – thanks for the clarification.
I’ve never examined the list of contributors to Measure R, nor do I know the amount that was raised.
The only folks I’ve met (who support Measure R) do so because they support the ability of residents to make such decisions. Some (probably even “most”) are more supportive of development than I am.
I do wish that more communities provided residents with the ability to make such decisions. As you know, Davis recently approved a couple of peripheral developments, so it certainly does not result in automatic rejections.
I recall that you stated that you voted against a couple of these recent proposals, which Measure R enabled you to do. I believe you ultimately supported one of them.
Would that one be you, and are you speaking of me? That would clearly be a highly personal attack, and also very false… a lie… a canard.
Feel free to report it.
Hey, it might even apply to me, as I see you noted! (I thought about that, as I was writing it.)
Truth be told, my family thinks I’m wasting my time and energy. So do I, but I find it irresistible to bring up what is left out of the advocacy on here. I believe the Vanguard’s advocacy (regarding development in particular) is harmful.
I think most regular readers are smart enough to figure it out, though.
It would be really great if you two would stop this kind of back and forth with respect to the personal comments. Thanks.
Ron O: your 8:16 post doesn’t seem to get the difference between how I voted (due to Measure R) on a particular project, and whether I believe Measure R should continue to exist as written … huge difference… if an item is on the ballot, will vote my conscience/opinion… if it is not on the ballot, no grief there. I believe development proposals should be the purview of the CC… elected by the people (called “representative government”)… I believe that once the CC (after going thru the Planning and other commissions for recommendations) has approved a project, it is more “spanking machine”, including annexations… LAFCO and the County also review those… not sure if Measure R is even “constitutional” under state/federal law… borders on the 5th amendment provisions. Maybe just hasn’t been questioned… perhaps it should be… State Law provides for referendum to overturn local gov’t decisions… nothing wrong in that… good thing. We don’t need Measure R, unless folk need to control others with rhetoric.
Already a remedy… referendum… Wildhorse was subject to that… it failed… Mace Ranch was subject to that… also put on the ballot, and failed… Target was similar, with similar results… when most folk vote “no” if they don’t understand (more is the pity), the Measure J/R folk figured it out, and effectively reversed the tables… be assured it was the latter political calculation that led to Measure J/R. It is essentially a political ‘farce’… and coming at the very end of processes that served well… and adds great expense/uncertainty to annexation proposals… as the authors intended… fit their agenda…
Just my view, and experience, over the last 45+ years as a resident in town…
Apparently, you don’t want an opportunity to vote your “conscience/opinion”.
Regarding representatives, they’ve historically “represented” development interests. In fact, they count on such interests to fund their campaigns. They’re essentially the same type of people as developers, in many areas.
It’s similar to appointing energy executives to “guard” our public/federal lands.
Even in Davis, council members are generally more supportive of development than voters.
No one is forcing developers to go through the Davis “spanking machine”, as you (and a former council member, as I recall) refer to it. In fact, I wish that developers would save everyone time, money, and energy by “thinking twice” before even submitting a proposal. But apparently, the potential payoff is sufficient enticement for them to continue pushing it – even when it clearly violates goals regarding local contributions to global warming, for example.
By the way, Davis is by no means unique regarding “growth controls” subject to voter approval, as some view Measure R.
And again, it’s pretty difficult to argue “against” Measure R, while simultaneously voting against selected proposals. (Maybe you should ask how the council would have voted on a particular peripheral proposal, and base your decision on that.)
Hoodley Hooooooooooo!
Bill: Regarding your following comment, I’m seeking clarification:
Let’s break this down.
First of all, who are you talking about, where/when did they (supposedly) make these statements? Did they self-identify as such at a time when the Vanguard primarily consisted of anonymous commenters? Or, did you (supposedly) research this on your own when Measure R was renewed almost 10 years ago?
What are some of the typical donation amounts that have caused you concern, and who made them?
Can you provide a link to the list that you’re referring to, and does it actually show such information?
Also, aren’t some of the major rental property owners also developers? (I’m not sure how to categorize the Nishi site owner, for example.)
How might you explain the fact that Measure R hasn’t negatively impacted any of the recent rental property proposals within the city? (I believe that most peripheral proposals have been targeted at potential homeowners, rather than renters.)
Do you personally view the ARC proposal as one that rental property owners would be concerned about, for the reason that you cite? (If so, then your view wouldn’t make much logical sense, since the proposal would actually increase demand for such housing.)
For background, here’s a link to information regarding the Measure R campaign, from 2010. Note who “led” the campaign against Measure R, at that time. Does this cause you any concern that’s similar to what you claimed as a concern, above?
https://localwiki.org/davis/June_2010_Election/Measure_R
Not worth my effort on details…but I owed you this response.