Dangerous Bike Lanes: Automobile Normativity Breeds Neglect (Part 1 of 3)
August 26, 2024
East Covell, Westbound, between the Mace Curve and Alhambra. See Video. Reported on 8/1/2024. Based on my understanding of how My Davis Requests are processed, this has not even been evaluated at time of writing.
Davis, CA - I've been riding a bike in cities for most of my adult life - that's forty years. As an example for others I don't often say that something feels safe; but when I feel a situation is dangerous it's a more valid perspective to share.
For the last six weeks or so I've had to travel two times a week from my home near Mace and Cowell to Sutter Davis. The fastest way there by car is via 80 and 113; by bicycle it's Mace to East and then West Covell. I have an e-bike, and it takes about 23 minutes, a bit longer if I don't make the lights, and longer still if I have to slow or even stop to avoid hitting overgrowth of trees and bushes into the bike lane, and slower if I have to stop to let vehicles pass when the overgrowth extends all the way to the edge of the traffic lane.
"In some situations when the tree concern appears to be an immediate safety hazard [emphasis mine] the Street division will respond and put up barricades or traffic control to block off the area until tree work can be done. When the Urban Forestry division assesses the tree they determine the urgency of the concern and who the work will be assigned to. They also consider if the tree is the City’s responsibility to maintain. If a tree is blocking the public right of way per the clearance standards for that specific area they will assign pruning of the tree to meet clearance standards for the roadway, bike lane, sidewalk or path. Prune may be done but City Urban Forestry staff or by our contract arborist, currently West Coast Arborist. Work is completed based on the priority assessment conducted by one of the City’s Certified Arborist. If you have any additional questions please contact us ..." - from a response to an earlier complaint.
How in this cornhole-tomato industrial apocalypse is the situation in the photo above not an "immediate hazard"? As of time of writing, along the westbound (WB) route between Mace and Sutter Davis, there are just over 30 bushes and trees which are "overgrowth" - the City's term - in the bike lane. Some require a diversion into the buffer (which is not a passing lane, and only part of this route has painted buffers), some require a diversion into the traffic lane, some require ducking under possibly sharp branch ends (ironically, the by-product of earlier trimming....).
Along this route I first reported overgrowth on the NB Mace Blvd overpass on July 27. It's still there, requiring a quick maneuver to avoid this punji stick, but - watch out! - not so far into the traffic lane!
What's curious is that "Closed" seems to only mean that the problem is solved in regards to potholes (and similar). "Closed" in relation to overgrowth on city property such as Covell indicates that the issue has been forwarded to the City's trees department, and with private property it means it went to the police for code enforcement. I have mentioned this and suggested that "Closed" should only be used if the issue is resolved (or fixed, etc) or some kind of interim category should be created to show it's in process. While non-anonymous issue filers receive updates via email, it would be better if everything was more clear in the My Davis App.
So... a real question is what's a realistic timeframe for the City to respond to what is objectively an "immediate hazard"? BUT the better real question is:
Would this be tolerated in [motor vehicle] traffic lanes for weeks at a time?
What would people who drive motor vehicles do if their daily route required diversions, stopping, making sure a big truck wasn't going to ram into them, multiple times a week on the way to work or an errand?
The answer is simple: The city would clear it immediately, or with a bit of delay during an exceptional weather event. They would clear the traffic lane or lanes. This is how it works here, and my personal experience for the last seven years I've lived here.
The roughly similar - but roughly more seasonal issue - is yard waste in bike lanes. It's explicitly completely illegal under city rules; "overgrowth" is not. Both are equally dangerous.
Reviewing City Hall minutes from ten years ago... many things regarding yard waste in bike lanes were promised. When I was on the BTSSC (RIP) - actually the night that Officer Natalie Corona (RIP) was killed - the Commission supported my wording of a recommendation to City Council to improve things. (It's perhaps worth noting that the immediate sequence of events that resulted in a person with serious behavioral health issues killing Officer Corona started with a vehicle crash on 5th St - things like that with cars are seen as normal, and are forgotten). The Council watered it down and nothing improved, or changed (with the exception of a few signs in certain areas simply referring to the existing regulation.)
I have very little hope that the Council, Staff and relevant Commissions will do anything about it. Case in point: School starts today! Did DJUSD work with the City in the last weeks to ensure that our City's safe routes to school (SRTS).. are safe? Beyond my ride to Sutter Davis I can say that they have not. There's lateral pot holes and overgrowth all over.
Measure Q? It makes general promises about improvements, but why would Davis change now and target the needs of the most vulnerable road users? It's never been the priority: The City chronically builds infrastructure that's not compliant with the 2016 Street Standards -- while simultaneously referring to then as "progressive" when it is going forward on a street project. The BTSSC was never consulted about the ongoing 10-year pavement plan nor the overlapping Cool Pavements project.
The City's not making it feel safe for me to get around... my sense is that those who are younger or have less experience with bicycles simply don't consider the fastest routes if they feel unsafe on them. Do people who normally drive not take certain routes in town because they feel dangerous?
*****
In the following additional examples, there is also the before and after of a sewer grate on the Mace overpass damaged to the level where one could stand a bike up in it, and its "fix", a few months after being reported. Some fine craftsmanship, there!
There's also a screenshot from the City's "What Do you Do?" video series of very light and uncritical portraits of city staff and their job duties. Why wasn't this slip up about "world" never corrected?
*****
Parts 2 and 3 coming soon:
Part 2: What the City plans to do about yard waste and other materials in bike lanes - a ridiculous new tool.
Part 3: What the City should be doing (and why success of Measure Q might not help very much.)
*****
What can you do now?
* Write the Transportation Commission (copying to City Council, new Active Transportation Coordinator Sereena Rai and the City's tree department): tc@cityofdavis org, [email protected], [email protected],[email protected].
* Ask the League of American Bicyclists if Davis deserves its "Platinum Bike Friendly" rating: [email protected] (there is not an application currently under review -- this is just a cheeky way to get this corrosive garbage on their radar.)
* Ask the Board of the Davis Joint Unified School District if the situation is safe for students, and if they got the City to check for obstructions - including potholes - on safe routes to schools in Davis before the first of day of class today: [email protected].
This is a principal agent problem where convincing the agent to do better is considered a short term fix (the agent's efforts will slack and requires ongoing principal supervision).
Long term/actual solutions are changing the context so that the agent can be replaced or eliminated. (If you ordered a meal and you don't like it, you would order something else next time or cook it yourself. Do those options exist for a principal to solve the problem directly and be reimbursed? Does the city has a system to let qualified people check out equipment to do maintenence work? Is the city making it easy for principals to maintain the city itself?)
Posted by: Edgar Wai | August 28, 2024 at 09:39 AM
Edgar, thanks for your reply:
The "options" for a route by bike are less direct, more stop signs with no one else at intersections, construction zones, have equally problematic conditions, and/or requiring sharing with pedestrians:
1) Mace & Cowell to Sutter Davis via Cowell, Research Park Dr, Putah Creek Parkway, UCD Campus, Arthur, etc: Cowell has lateral cracks in bike lanes (also a SRTS), poor bike lane, construction sign in bike lanes, road construction, housing construction, marginal bike lane west of Pelz on Cowell to the east end of Research Park, long stop lights to west end of Research Park etc., official 15 mph speed limit on campus....
2) Mace & Cowell to MUP (at Pelz) to Putah Creek Parkway (then as in 1): MUP (also part of Davis Bike Loop) in terrible condition in places, have to share with pedestrians (really shouldn't go faster than 10 mph, or need to slow a lot)
3) Mace & Cowell to Pelz Bridge to 5th to B St to 8th etc - Generally better bike lanes on marginally slower arterial and collector streets, but indirect and with many lights and stop signs...
4) Mace & Cowell, Mace cycleway (only in Davis City limits), to Montgomery to Putah Creek Parkway: Thoughtless design at intersection to go from WB Cowell to SB Mace cycleway, inexplicable break in cycleway at City's south edge, Montgomery generally very little traffic but really only shoulders and I am curious if parents let pre-teens ride here alone...
5) Mace & Cowell over Mace overpass, west on Covell, taking MUP on north side of Covell starting at southeast corner of Wildhorse, back on Covell at Pole Line: Same problem as referenced in article, MUP is sometime circuitous, intersections at free rights of vehicle coming off of fast road etc, sharing with pedestrians.
The MUP (and crossing streets like a pedestrian, etc) is a false choice to a faster route that should be safe, too. MUP's are a bad compromise. They cannot be main cycle routes. They are not optimized for fast cycling. There's not actually a safe place to ride fast in Davis, except perhaps from 3 to 5am on arteries. The trip from the southeast corner of El Macero to Lake and Covell takes 35 min at fast cycling speeds. If the alternative to this is Mace to 80 to 113 to W. Covell by motor vehicle, we need cycleways - generally similar to Mace Blvd but with sophisticated intersection design - across town, a couple routes E to W and N to S. High speeds on e-bikes are less necessary if stops are converted to yields and major intersections are converted to roundabouts. That's expensive, that's what's needed, "best whatever" in the USA means nothing. This is the way it is. Cycling modal share - except trips to campus from closer parts of town - is low and is going down. I lived roughly the same distance from Downtown and campus as Shriner's : With no changes in infrastructure and route optimization, cycling rates will be really low.
***
Regarding "reimbursed", as mentioned above the City normally contracts an outside firm to trim trees, etc. They put areas deemed not as immediate hazards on some list which they get to eventually.
***
Regarding "qualified people" and "making it easy: This will covered in Part 2. But volunteers - no matter the skill level - should not be used for normal maintenance, even more so if it places one in harm's way, like in any bike lane on an arterial.
Posted by: Tuvia ben Olam | August 28, 2024 at 11:21 AM
Hello Tuvia, I am looking forward to part 2.
The following mainly explains what I meant, which might have only some relevance to the clarity of your article. I am writing because I think we meant the same thing but our use of words is different. It has more to do with showing that there is probably no difference between our views than showing anything wrong in yours. The attached URL is just another discussion on solving principal-agent problems in general, which I will try to add my explanations below.
== Options ==
In this context, we are like the masters of a mansion, the city staff is like a shared Butler, and contractors for groundskeeping are gardeners that the Butler hires. "Options" in this context refers to how freely the Butler hires better gardeners, how freely each Master hires a different Butler for their garden section, or how freely each Master can hire a gardener directly for their garden section.
When options are available, the moment a master complains, the gardener would respond immediately because the gardener knows that they are in direct competition against other options.
Relevance: From your article, I am getting the impression that you are saying the issue is not in a lack of gardener options, but that the Butler doesn't care about groundskeeping along bike paths. If that is what you meant, then the options we (as the masters) should invest in more freedom to replace the Butler.
== Solution vs Countermeasure vs Complacency ==
I am experimenting with an acronym of problem-solving called EPIC, which organizes a problem-solving approach in four steps: End Goals, Principles, Implementation, and Confirmation. In the first step End Goals, we as the masters should share what End Goals we envision when the problem is solved.
In this context, do we (you and me, since we are discussing) share these End Goals:
1. The trees and vegetation are still allowed to grow, but are well kept, and the citizens don't need to file a complaint before a ground crew would trim them.
2. The way maintenance is done is efficient, well-coordinated, safe, and sustainable. There are no bloated costs and no wasteful or duplicated efforts.
3. The way maintenance is done increases citizen belonging to the city and decreases class separation among the people living or serving the city.
Do you object to any of these End Goals or do you have some you want to add?
In the second step Principles, I think it is relevant to mention the difference between a Solution, a Countermeasure, and Complacency.
1. Complacency: Allowing the force that causes the issue to continue to happen, but taking it upon oneself to accommodate the cause to mitigate its effect on others. (In this context, complacency includes choosing a different route to avoid ill-maintained bike paths, or having citizens take it upon themselves to trim the bike paths while the Butler and the Gardeners sit on their paychecks.) Complacency is not a solution because it doesn't eliminate the root cause of the problem. It only subsidizes the problem and lets it keep happening.
2) Countermeasure: Identify the cause of the problem, and be able to detect the problem and take corrective actions. This is not a "Solution" because it requires someone else to supervise or detect the problem before it gets fixed. (In this context, allowing citizens to complain and act swiftly on those complaints to clear bike paths is only a countermeasure, because it still took people time to file such complaints. Those are unproductive administrative deadweight for the city.)
3) Solution: Eliminate the cause of the problem so the problem doesn't exist for anyone to complain about or to devise a countermeasure. (In this context, having constant options for the Butler and Gardeners is a solution because it forces the Butler and Gardeners to do good jobs and the Master doesn't need to complain.)
== Skill and Volunteer ==
This section is to clarify a potential difference between what you call a volunteer and what I call a volunteer. You said volunteers should not be used no matter the skill level. What quality about a volunteer are you objecting to?
When I talk about a volunteer, I am referring to whether they have autonomy in choosing the task. For example, a prison may assign prisoners to do gardening work. In that situation, the gardeners are not volunteers.
A contractor gardener is a volunteer (if they didn't bid for the task voluntarily, they wouldn't have won the contract). A volunteer does not imply they are unpaid.
What quality are you objecting about volunteers? Are you just referring to you don't want complacency-type responses? (i.e. You don't want to promote a culture where the Masters do the gardening themselves while still paying the Butler and the Gardeners to do nothing.) If that is your objection, I agree that complacency voluntarism is undesirable. But that is not the kind of voluntarism I am talking about. The kind I am talking about is an open/micro contracting system where if anyone complains about an issue, there is a surplus of qualified people that readily complete the task and the system lets them do it.
All of those qualified people (be it a company, a contractor, or an individual) are volunteers because they chose to take the task to main mother nature. (We are still talking about the context of groundskeeping against mother nature's growth, we are not talking about issues where there is a malicious actor such as vandalism.)
By letting citizens volunteer and take a direct part in the beauty of their neighborhood, it would satisfy End Goal #3 of increasing belonging and happiness. It is said that happiness happens when people feel that they are making a difference and feel appreciated. If you don't let people volunteer you are robbing them of an opportunity to be happy. For that End Goal, the Passion of the citizens is the hardest to cultivate. Once the citizens have that Passion, providing supervision and equipment to fulfill their Passion is much easier.
Posted by: Edgar Wai | August 29, 2024 at 10:30 AM
Edgar: There is nothing that public employees hate more than voulenteers since if they knew people like me cut branches that stuck into bike lanes with a folding bow saw (that fits in a backpack) they would do whatever they can to stop me since every cut I make takes away a $1,000+/union cutting job. The key is to keep a low profile if you are doing things like pulling weeds or blowing and sweeping tennis court. Below is what happens when you don't keep a low profile:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/20/americas/man-steps-trouble-trnd/index.html
P.S. If we all helped out maybe we would not need to raise the sales tax and have so many parcel taxes...
Posted by: South of Davis | August 29, 2024 at 08:32 PM