Double Bridge-Freeway shutdown to hit West Sac

By Alan Hirsch, Yolo Mobility

Seen Friday in West Sacramento at the tower bridge

Both US 50 freeway in West Sac and the Tower Bridge look to be 100% shut down for periods this coming weekend. Combine this with likely congestion on Jefferson  blvd  entrance to 50 where freeway reopens, this could be a perfect storm for residents of West Sac who may not be able to leave their neighborhoods due to cut-thru Freeway traffic congesting local streets, a detour Caltrans suggests for freeway drivers in its press releases. Caltrans press release seems unaware the Tower bridge will also be shut for a charity event both Saturday and Sunday AM until 1pm.

As reported previously here and here are reprinted Caltrans press releases reporting, east bound highway 50 freeway will be closed in West Sac from the 50-80 split at Enterprise Blvd to Jefferson Blvd. This beginning next Friday 3/14  at 9pm thru Monday, and opening only Tuesday 3/18  at 5am. This is for Caltrans pavement rehab work and is not related to widening to add the I-80 Yolo toll lane, whose construction is yet to begin. The press release seems to indicate east bound drivers can still go north on I-80 at the split to Natomas.

(note- as told to me Monday night at YoloTD meeting, US 50 shut it may yet be put back again to another weekend-—when it will conflict with Baseball season openers at Sutter Health field.)

By Alan “Lorax” Hirsch

About 1500 people attended the science rally Friday March 7th at the Sacramento state capitol — 1/3 carrying unique home made signs. Who says scientists are not creative?! Evidence of people from UC Merced, Sac State, government agencies and of course UC Davis.

Davis’s Beth Bourne seemed the only counter protestor. She was escorted off capitol grounds to the street side sidewalk by CHiP officers because of her disruptive chanting.

Commentary by Heather Caswell with Jonathan Greenberg

Our decision to threaten the City of Davis with a class action lawsuit on behalf of members of the Downtown Davis Business Association (DDBA) was not made easily, or quickly. For years, an organization that was created to support the interests of hundreds of dues-paying businesses has instead been co-opted to support controversial political positions promoted by the Davis City Council, as detailed below.

As stated in the California Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 Stanson v. Mott decision, a “fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions.”

This means that it would be illegal if the Davis City Council, even indirectly, allowed a special tax dedicated to promoting the interest of downtown businesses be used to promote political speech benefiting city council positions on public initiatives.

We believe that this is what the DDBA has done,  through an unaccountable board of directors, which holds its power through irregular and potentially illegal elections

The DDBA has done this through an un-accountable board of directors, which holds its power through irregular and potentially illegal elections. Fewer than 10% of the organization's members voted in the January 23 election that I ran in. Three quarters of the dozens of DDBA businesses that I spoke to never received email notifications of the election. Not a single one was notified by the organization that they could run for its board. And at a time when all DDBA Board meetings are held over zoom, members, for no good reason, were required to vote in person within a one hour period, instead of online, at their convenience.

When Ezra Beeman and I ran to help create a more responsive board, the existing board members and the DDBA Executive Director colluded to change the election rules at the last minute, while they selectively recruited other former board members to show up to run or vote against us. Without any mention during the board meetings prior to the election, they added four seats to the seven member board two days before the election (the DDBA website today still states that they are a seven member board). They then delayed the printing of ballots for three days to print them just hours before the election, so that the names of their friendly candidates could be included.

By Alan Hirsch

Tuesday, Davis city’s  “trial of the decade” begins to wrap up with closing arguments - and the public can watch the drama of three sets of polished lawyers via live-stream from home.

The issue is liability for the city killing a woman to through neglect of a city tree in a Slide Hill City park. The city of Davis and Davey consultants are defendants. Plaintiffs are the survivors of Jennifer Comey. She was killed by a tree limb in front of her three-year-old daughter by tree that overhung a sandbox—  the city could not provide any evidence of pruning or inspecting the tree during the trial.

 The Jury verdict may be  delivered before the weekend.

You can watch the drama in closing argument on Tuesday on line. The Jury will files in at 10:30-sharp. It will run until noon,

 You can attend dept 11 at yolo court house in person, or you can watch live stream at www.yolo.courts.ca.gov  Dept 11.

***
I have watched this slow motion tragedy unfold in city government as the “self-appointed Lorax” for over 15 years now. Previous generations of Council was advised  by top management they can cut funding maintenance of tree infrastructure. They were advised they could ignore the public comments of concern on this matter.

Even as everyone could see the city arborist was struggling to do his job.

The current council and community are now stuck with cleaning up the mess.

 The entire city hall chain of command who advised council and managed the city into this situation have now moved on- or with Mike Webb now leaving, have announced they soon will.

 Current Davis-and Yolo residences (thru YCPARMA risk pool) will be held liable to pick up the tab that will total some multiple of the tax increase we noted on ourself last November. 

By Nate Huntington
Solano Together Coalition Member

Thank you to those who showed up last week at the Suisun City Council meeting to voice your concerns about the discussion on expanding city boundaries and exploring land annexation.  

In Short: Last Tuesday, January 21, the Suisun City Council voted 4-1 to “provide direction to staff to explore strategic opportunities for expanding Suisun City’s boundaries and advancing the goals outlined in the Resiliency Plan.”

Right before the meeting, Solano Together sent out an action alert urging supporters to attend and voice their concern for the lack of government transparency and the intention to expand boundaries into parcels in the Sphere of Influence—defined as a boundary that shows the probable future service area and physical boundaries of a local agency. We also had representatives in attendance for public comment.

(From press release) On February 2, the twenty-first annual Celebration of Abraham will meet and explore Finding Strength to Move Through Challenges. The event will be held from 3 to 5 pm at the Lutheran Church of the Incarnation, 1701 Russell Boulevard in Davis.

This past year has been very hard. We had one of the most contentious elections in decades. The consequences of the election will mean that many in our state face potential deportation and family separation. The fires in Southern California, which have burned over 40,000 acres, are more evidence of the devastating effects of climate change. Our world feels increasingly fragile.

Religious traditions offer insight into how we can face these challenges with kindness and decency. The Celebration’s speakers and the training and table exercises in how to listen to others will offer insight into how the three Abrahamic traditions can help us face the difficulties in the next year. The three speakers this year are Mairaj Syed, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Middle East/South Asia Studies Program at University of California Davis and a founding member or the MUSLIM DEAN; John Katonah, Congregation Bet Haverim and President of the Yolo Interfaith Immigration Network; and the Very Rev. Pamela Dolan, Rector, the Episcopal Church of Saint Martin, Davis.

This year the Celebration of Abraham is raising funds for two nonprofit groups--Sahaya International https://sahaya.org/ and the Yolo Interfaith Immigration Network https://www.yiinyolo.org/. The Celebration acts as the fiscal sponsor to collect these funds. The Celebration provides donors with a tax receipt.  All funds that are donated  will be divided equally between YIIN and Sahaya.

To register for the event, please use this link  https://bit.ly/COAstrength . The link is case sensitive. You can also use this link to donate.

Suisun City, Suisun City’s sphere of influence and Flannery Associates land parcels. Map by Solano Together using QGIS. Datasources: OSM Standard, MTC/ABAG Data Library, Solano County parcel data

Nate Huntington 
Solano Together Coalition

This Tuesday, January 21, at 6:30 p.m., we urge you to attend the City of Suisun Council Meeting, where there will be a discussion on potentially expanding Suisun City limits.

What? Suisun City Council Meeting
When? TODAY - Tuesday, January 21, at 6:30 p.m.
Where? Suisun City Council Chambers, 701 Civic Center Boulevard, Suisun City, CA – or
Zoom Meeting Information:
Link: https://zoom.us/join
MEETING ID: 829 2890 4906
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER: (707) 438-1720

WHY IT'S IMPORTANT

Late Friday evening, the City of Suisun City released the agenda for today’s City Council meeting. Agenda item number 17 is inconspicuously titled, “Vision for Suisun City: Building Resilience and Expanding Opportunities.” This appears to be a plan by the City of Suisun to annex land owned by California Forever and work with them to develop outside of existing city limits. California Forever is continuing their secretive, behind closed doors approach even after committing to a public process.

In the agenda packet, starting on page 179, the item discusses the city’s economic “Resiliency Plan” and suggests “the Resiliency Plan’s ultimate success depends on increasing the city’s population and strategically expanding its boundaries.”

The trial date is approaching for PITTS vs. CITY OF DAVIS.

Theodore Pitts the widower of Jennifer Comey who was killed by the limb of a City of Davis Tree in Slide Hill Park will get his day in court in attempt to seek compensation for the death of his wife. A jury trial date has been set for February 3^rd, 2025 with a trial readiness conference to be held on January 27^th.

Ms. Comey died when a large tree limb fell on her in Slide Hill Park while she watched her toddler play in a sandbox during a windstorm in 2021. She was survived by her child and husband Theodore Pitts.

The trial will take place in Yolo County Superior Court in Woodland with Judge Fell presiding. Mr. Pits is represented by Sacramento attorney Roger A. Dreyer and Anthony J. Garilli of Dreyer, Babich, Buccola, Wood and Campora. Both are accomplished attorneys having successfully won millions for their clients at trial.

The City of Davis is represented by Kevin J. Dehoff of Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff of Sacramento. His website lists “Public Entity Defense” as his first Practice Area.

Davey Resource Group, Inc and West Coast Arborists, Inc were also named as defendants in the case. But earlier this month Judge David Rosenberg made a tentative ruling granting Summary Judgement for West Coast Arborists excusing them from the case. Davey Resource Group’s similar motion was denied leaving them as a defendant in the Case.

West Coast Arborist is a contractor for the City of Davis that handles wide ranging tree trimming duties in the City.

Davey Resource Group is a Ohio based Company that provides wide ranging tree and urban forestry consulting to the City of Davis.

If the City and/or Davey Resource Group is found responsible or negligent Pitts could be awarded millions in compensation for the tragedy that befell his family.

By Heather Caswell and Jonathan Greenberg

Commentary

January 18, 2025

Since writing my December 18 Enterprise column about the public safety crisis in downtown Davis, I have heard feedback from dozens of my customers, most of them older women.

Some, like former Assembly Member Helen Thomson, asked how they could support the effort. Many thanked me for paying attention. Nearly all of them told me that they now feel unsafe in downtown Davis for the first time in their lives.  

Who are we, as a community, when we cannot protect our most vulnerable members? After decades of progress in curtailing violence against women, how is it that our legal system today tolerates mentally unstable younger men menacing women, children and the elderly with violent threats, week after week, with no consequences?

By Alan Hirsch

The Enterprise "editor's choice" of the top ten Davis stories of the year ran on January 1st as it always does. Five of the top ten stories seemed to me involved sad but fleeting incidents—crime or auto accidents—some of which even occurred in Woodland.

So, here’s my alternative list of top stories, things that I believe will have a lasting impact on the Davis community—with a bit of foreshadowing into 2025. Only two of my list of stories are on the Enterprise’s "top ten" list.

1. Local impact of Trump’s election: With Davis voting over 85% for Harris, her loss had a profound psychological effect on residents, especially given the “culture war” aspect of the race. Beyond this, the presidential campaign involved hundreds of local residents in what surely was likely the biggest single volunteer effort of 2024: Davisites made tens of thousands of phone calls and texts, over 30,000 postcards were handwritten to encourage others to vote, and residents traveled repeatly to Nevada or a Central Valley “purple” congressional districts to register voters and get out the vote. The best qualification of the unprecedented election involvement is that Davisites donated over ten times more money to campaigns compared to 2016. Apart from the volunteering, the looming impacts of Trump’s policies will be profound in Yolo County. Trump’s promise to deport 11 million residents (~1.5m in California) will likely impact 8-12% of Central Valley/Yolo families- at least with existential fear even if Trump fails to fulfill his deportation policy. With UC Davis being an internationally connected institution, I expect xenophobic/America First policies like the reinstatement of the Muslim ban will others too.
   
   
2. K-12 Schools are the core of Davis, so Spring 2024 voter approval of DJUSD Parcel Tax Measure N should be a top ten story. N’s goal was to retain our DJUSD teachers by allowing an overdue salary increase so we can continue to attract and retain the best teachers. The steady decline in the number of Davis-resident students in our school system is also very important story, as is the addition of many new DJUSD buildings which seems to have gone unnoticed. The Trump’s culture war on schools is also on DJUSD's radar (see story #10 below). The Enterprise's failure to retain a dedicated DJUSD reporter is probably part of the reason for what feels like a news blackout here.
   
   
3. Death of Delaine Eastin: To me, this was a notable passing of a beloved figure.
   
   
4. New Davis law allowing Food Trucks at events and locations other than the farmers market.
   
   
5. The New Library in South Davis and the tax increase vote to operate it.
   
   
6. Plans for thousands of new Davis homes & apartments: The Council has been working diligently on a number of development proposals, with a bias toward affordability (small or subsidized) and higher density they hope will reduce GHG & traffic impact of these developments. Two large apartment complexes in south Davis along the freeway are due to open up soon. Collectively, these will profoundly change Davis.
   
   
7. I-80 widening: This is the main access to Davis given the anemic (slow and expensive to use) regional transit options local electeds have provided us. Last spring, funding for phase 1 of this controversial $465 million widening was approved—the largest public works project in Yolo for the next decade. I expect I-80 widening will remain in the news as a) construction will continue for at least another 3 years, b) additional funding to complete it might be contingent on the results of an environmental lawsuit, and c) sticker shock & social inequity: UC Davis experts forecast it will recongest within ten years unless drivers can pay what electeds say will be a $5-10/peak hour one-way toll on the new lane. I would also top-rate the passage of an increase in city sales tax (~$10 million/year) which can be used to catch up on overdue street repair.
   
   
8. Streamlining Davis government (or reducing community participation?) In the winter of 2024, the Davis Council decided to reduce citizen oversight Commissions by 25%—and reduce their independence by monitoring what is on their agendas. Now they are reframing the commission role from oversight to “ambassadors” to the community. This is a bit of an “inside the beltway” story, but the issue is still generating op-eds & letters to the editor ten months later. That it is still an issue is indicated by Mayor Chapman announcing he was stepping down from the council Commission Subcommittee due to the continuing controversy. This meta story is important as it impacts all city decision-making going forward. The Enterprise lists only one political issue as a top story—the November election of 3 members of the city council and a new County supervisor for East Davis. But this was largely an affirmation of the status quo governance as all these new electeds are insiders. The passage of the sales tax increase, though a significant bump in city revenue, is seen by its advocates as an affirmation of continuing the status quo, so to me less than top news, like the fact electeds three of whom ran unchallenged.
   
   
9. Homeless situation: Certainly, this is one of the biggest challenges our and other communities are dealing with. There has been many meeting on this, and a Davis law change on encampments drew an unusual 20 speakers to a city council meeting to comment.  
   
   
10. Culture War Comes to Davis with the election of Trump: Is it a pandemic of Jew-hate from the left or the beginning of an anti-antisemitic red scare? Are both true? A big story in Davis 2024 was the protests of US support of the Gaza/Israel war—which at times morphed into questioning the legitimacy of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state – and its governing “from the River to the Sea.” There is no new protest encampment at UCD this scholastic year, but other civil disobedience continues: sporadic protests on campus continue to illegally disrupt speakers' events, But weekly protests for a ceasefire at Congressman Thompson’s local office in Woodland continue --legally -- without  incident after 15 months. Meanwhile a number of Jews in Davis have accused protestors, seemingly en masse, of being “radical antisemites,” lawbreakers, or even connected to Iran.  UC Davis was hit, as were many colleges & universities, by a Title VI Civil Rights suit by national Jewish groups for allowing an antisemitic climate to exist—i.e. not shutting down the protests or (somehow) not stopping individual acts of antisemitic graffiti & vandalism, and microaggressions toward Jewish students. They seem to hold Davis schools responsible for some social media threats against Jewish students from unidentifiable sources while ignoring the removal of moderation of X (aka twitter) by Elon Musk that used to eliminate antisemitic posts.
    
    In 2025 this conflict looks to morph, especially for Davis, into something bigger with the election of Trump and his takeover of the Department of Justice and the FBI. The GOP and Christian Right are culturally appropriating the charge of “antisemitism” against the left and academia, escalating any questioning of Israeli policy in Gaza into the equivalence of attack on Jews in general, and even support of terrorism. (Google the Heritage Foundation’s follow on to Project 2025 “Project Esther”). The grounds are set for a “red scare” about antisemitic terror. But you can find dichotomous thinking among many on both sides.  I would expect to see more legal pressure on UC Davis and even DJUSD:  Harmeet Dhillon, the lawyer for Davis’s own notorious culture warrior/anti-trans activist Beth Bourne is slated to be the head of the Trump DOJ Civil Rights division that supports Title VI complaints against schools.

To sum it up:  “May you live in interesting times.”.

***

Alan Hirsch can be seen in the Saturday Farmers Market passing out “Love your Neighbor” and “Support Science” lawn signs.

Today's article is a video against Measure Q.  This was going to be my testimony before the Davis City Council, but they didn't meet last week.  Or the week before that.  Or next week.  What do they think this is, summer break? 

Here's the three-minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mXBTMCgRo

Of course, as always at Al's Corner, other subjects welcome!  ;-)

Davis Citizen  (sung to the tune of "Witchita Lineman" by Glen Campbell)

I am a citizen of Davis
And I bike the main roads
Searching in the street for another pah-ah-ot hole

I hear far-lefties call “more taxes!”
I can hear the fire fighters whine
They say the City budget
Is still on the line!

You say we have to save the planet
Cuz it don't look like rain
And the more we subsidize housing
The more the budget won't stand the strain

You say you need Q more than want Q
And you need Q for for all time
But this doubling of the local sales tax
Is all a lie!

Vote NO on Measure Q, Mildred!

(Original Glen Campbell version:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8P_xTBpAcY )

By Colin Walsh

Measure T provides funding for the operation of a new library in South Davis. T answers a long felt need in an underserved area. T is a discrete tax that joins already procured funds. T makes sense.

Measure Q is a bad deal for Davis. Q doubles the local sales tax from 1% to 2% increasing costs for everyone who shops in Davis — another reason for Davis residents to leave town to shop. Worse, Q can be spent on anything the council decides later and they have a bad track record of wasting money without meeting community needs.

The council just gave all city staff a large retroactive raise that significantly outpaced inflation. They also put much of the $19 million received from the federal government for Covid recovery to nice-to-have items like a pump track and arts grants rather than to more immediate needs.

All this as Davis has fallen more than two years behind in auditing its finances and there are irregularities and deficiencies found in the last audit, that itself was several years late.

The council also ended the finance and budget commission that acted as a public watch dog on the city budget.

Q is nothing like T. Voting for T will do something good for Davis. Voting for Q will encourage our council to continue with frivolous spending. The council needs a clear message that Davis wants accountability. Please vote no on Q. Yes, on T.

Open to all topics of course, but this month we'll focus on cutting off the City Council's allowance money!

To highlight this month's primary topic, here is my testimony sing-a-long from last night's City Council meeting (2 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsy-s6viEaU

Here are the lyrics:

Spend On (sung to the tune of "Dream On" by Aerosmith)

Every time that I look at the budget
All these lines on the books, they try to fudge it
The money's gone
It went by like a unwatered lawn
Isn't that the way?
The City always spends more than it can pay, yeah

I know, nobody knows
Where the money comes and where the money goes
I know it's the City Council’s sin
You've got overspend in order to win

[ kazoo bridge ]

Half the spending is on bottomless budget pages
Ladder trucks, zip lines and climate changes
You know it's true, oh . . .
All this spending, come back to you

Spend with me, Spend through the years
Spend on the soccer field, and on housing crisis fears
Spend with me, not just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take the City Debt, away

But until then . . .

Vote No, Vote No, Vote No
Vote No on Measure Q!

Vote No, Vote No, or Spend On!  Spend On!
Vote No!, Vote No!, Vote No! - Waaaaaaaaa-oooooooo!

[ kazoo piano fade ]

By Scott Steward

51 Weeks of Protest, Yolo for Palestinian Justice weekly protest in front of Mike Thompson's Woodland Office. We witness a genocide and Mike does nothing. It will be a year next week.n

51 Weeks of Protest, Yolo for Palestinian Justice weekly protest in front of Mike Thompson's Woodland Office. We witness a genocide and Mike does nothing.  It will be a year next week.

It is some comfort, if small comfort, that the moorings of our Davis democracy are relatively intact, even as our "leadership" gambles our democracy on US/Israeli war crimes.  I would say that Israel has drawn Iran into war and the US along with it, except that it is obvious that the US has been party to the war plan all along.  12 months of Genocide?  That is the cost of doing business for Israel and the US.

After yesterday's 200 mostly destroyed Iranian missile attacks on Israeli military targets, “Make no mistake,” Joe Biden said, “The United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel.” October 1 2024, Michael Birnbaum Washington Post.

Blinken has been lying about peace (see Veterans for Peace lawsuit below). Joe is delusional. Together along with most all of our federal representatives, including our Congressman Mike Thompson, we have been lied to about any and all consternation concerning Israel. No serious thoughts of how to secure the return of the hostages, no thoughts on how to give honor to those killed on October 7th, just a year of killing (42,000 Gazan's dead, mostly women and children).

As we debate Measure Q and the rest of the November ballot here in Davis, you are about to see your future hopes, dreams, and dollars be flushed down the war toilet - again. Why not pay the extra 1% sales tax for Measure Q, and get our $11 million local dollars.  We might as well, we are about to experience the same Iraq/Afghan Washington Beltway war f-- up with Iran  ($21 Trillion US dollars, 2,000 US and 200,000 Iraq killed). In the end, we will have a more radicalized and impoverished Arab world when it is all over.  Let's all go buy Raytheon stock! 

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! 

About these "Closed" Requests: 500 5th, next to ex-Hibberts - Overgrowth, remedied as it it's Downtown?; 909 5th St - a downed tree, initially moved only out of the traffic lane into bike lane; 1111 W. Covell, referred to police as it was from private property and a code violation, but still was not removed for about six weeks.)

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? 

Additional photography and video from the Mace overpass on NB Mace to E. Covell just west of Pole Line.

*****

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].

After years and years of anticipation and false promises of 'any day now' going back years, the 'Vanguard News Group' new website landed last week with a 'plop', like the sound of a human turd dropping on a San Francisco sidewalk.  I honestly wanted it to be better, but it wasn't.  In some ways it was worse.  Why spend so much time to get it right, and then roll out something that is less functional and still has many of the problems of the old site?

The old site was bad and getting worse.  It would load so slowly it would often time out.  The site used massive RAM memory that would drain a laptop battery.  The pages would skip while you were reading them, and then when you went back (if you could find where you were), the page would skip again. 

Towards the end the site had some sort of virus/malware that would cause the page to spontaneously skip to unwanted ad pages, and it would replace the recent history with six steps of the same ad page address with the original address eliminated.  Usually it was unwanted ads, or Bing, for some reason.  A couple of times it was straight up porn.  Without giving it in full the domain address it skipped to once began with "https://da.check-tl-ver-176-2.com/my-adult-video/ . . . ".   This should have been stopped at once, but it happened 2-3 times.

One piece of good news, the new site hasn't spontaneously skipped to ads or porn or replaced the short-term history.  It has, however, had the same loading issues and even said, "The site you are trying to reach is taking too much memory and is slowing down your browser.  Would you like to leave?".  It also still spontaneously skips text as it is trying to load text, and still does it again when you go back.  Others have told me this was the worst part of the old site to them as well, and it's amazing DG rolled out the new site without fixing this.

Certain things about the new site are worse:  It's too plain.  While the old site had too much color, it would have been nice to have kept the old color scheme, just as borders and highlight, but it's just plain with no character.  For some reason, the "Davis Vanguard" livery is replaced with "Vanguard News Group".  Like so many things with the Vanguard, I'm sure this has some meaning to DG, but to the common person it's just confusing. 

There is no ability to click on comments so you have to scroll through the whole article to reach them.  Honestly, the so-called articles are so often dull and predictable and/or copied from elsewhere, so I'd often read the comments first or don't read the article at all.  Having to scroll to comments, if there are any at all, which increasingly there are not, is just more than I feel like doing.  In addition, there is no 'new comments' box, so you'd have to keep track of each article and keep clicking on it to see if anyone added a new comment.  And again, that's more than me or most people are willing to do.  And as people learn that no one knows they posted a new comment, they won't bother to post at all.

The banner at the top only hides one article at a time, and it moves at a weird rate, and it's too big and obscures to those not familiar that the most recent news is below.  The articles are still repetitive crap on housing in Davis, how someone is going to sue on measure J, and on why cutting school costs actually costs money, and how more housing will save schools.  And there are the usual copy articles on the evils of 'carceration' by the ACLU.  And by the way, if you liked the ACLU of years ago, join F.I.R.E..  It's like the old ACLU without all the new utlra-progressive crap.

DG say:  "The website highlights the various segments of the Vanguard. My focus will continue to be heavily on Davis issues and multiple commentaries each week."  Let me guess:  Recycled crap about  housing in Davis, how someone is going to sue on measure J, on why cutting school costs actually costs money, and how more housing will save schools.

DG say:  "we now have a team member who is working exclusively on grants which we see as part of the long-term financial sustainability for the Vanguard."  It's good to have a team member doing this, so they can get grants that will partially cover their own salary  :-|   And bye bye Sparkplug Foundation:  you exhibit poor judgement.

KO say:  "I remember the days when there would be 50 comments by 9am. There were robust conversations. The fact now that comments often sit in the moderation queue for hours kills any chance of that ever happening again."   Yup.

KO say:  "Where are the several conservative commenters that used to post? Having diverse views used to generate more commenting. I thought progressives were supposed to be all about diversity."  Diversity of skin color, not diversity of ideas.

KO say:  "What you need are the Alan Millers, Ron Oertels, SOD’s and Frankly’s to return."  Not to mention Rik Keller, that spacey woman who talked about space aliens, and that drunkard musician who doxxed RO with the global coordinates of his house.

And yes, bringing back Alan C. Miller would be the savior of the Vanguard.  He is more interesting then the entire blog and its staff combined and can bring you joy and eternal life.  Alan C. Miller says:  "I am the resurrection and the life.  He who believes in my will never die!"  [Actually Alan C. Miller does not say that.]

But it is true that bringing back the robust community comments would bring more clicks and more eyes.  Apparently that doesn't interest the Vanguard.  Having developers, H.A.L.'s, useful idiots, startup foundations and civil-rights lawyers fund the thing is all that matters in the new business model, apparently, and community engagement and discussion or even clicks really don't matter.  Is that sustainable?  Especially with a tax lawsuit to fight?

I would have gladly served as a site-tester for the new website, but no one asked me.  Apparently DG never even had a normal person look at it, as surely they would have said, "Dude . . . "

Well, DG, your savior awaits.  DG deep down knows I am the savior, that my comments are the best, most humorous, and most interesting and will save all blogs whom I touch.  DG knows my terms.  DG knows the real problem.  But until he deals with it . . .

Your host:  Alan C. "Al" Miller

Pictured:  an extreme version of himself

The 30% Design (excerpt)

Necessary ADA improvements at Davis Train Station are complicated by toxic over-promise of shared infrastructure.

Facilities essential to support modern train-bike multi-modal travel a vague promise.

City Council plans to sign an MOU with Amtrak at their meeting today; a update of the “30% design” for station modifications will also be presented. 

Starting in around 2012 the City of Davis - in cooperation or partnership with Amtrak and Capitol Corridor - began to attempt improvements for multi-modal access to the Southern Pacific Railway Depot, aka. Davis Depot, Davis Amtrak etc. In 2018-2020 this continued with an outreach program to determine desires and consider possibilities. (There are some bad links there, here is the Final Study). In subsequent years and through the present day Amtrak and Union Pacific made the City aware of a national program to ensure that Amtrak stations are ADA-compliant.

I fully support the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related ideas in mobility equity, and have actively done so for a long time. I applied the general principles to a train station optimization concept I worked on when I lived in Prague nearly 20 years ago, and - back in the USA in the past ten years for a water shuttle in the Estuary between Alameda and Oakland, and in Davis in regards to continued lack of a sidewalk from Old East Davis east of L and more acutely as an overgrown lot forced people to walk on 2nd Street. 

Unfortunately, however, the absolutely late and totally necessary ADA improvements also planned for Davis Depot, while ostensibly improving the lot for people with mobility challenges will likely create not continual yet repeating complications for these users and people who use bikes or walk.

And it’s all completely unnecessary. 

While safe infrastructure for everyone moving not by private vehicle is a necessary entitlement, there’s only a Federal law for people with mobility challenges, not - yet - for people riding bikes. So while I will focus on what I now am coining as TOPoS - toxic over-promise of shared infrastructure - I will also highlight the lowlights of barely vaguely planned bicycle facilities at the train station. 

TOPoS

One doesn’t have to spend a long time on NextDoor forums focused on Davis to see a most often justified call for people to “slow down on Greenbelts” when riding bikes, and especially e-bikes and e-scooters. It’s anti-social when people do this, but what do we expect? Enforcement will never solve this, and technology fixes such as used on parts of UCD campus for shared micromobility devices don’t work with private micromobility devices, and may not for a very long time. The Greenbelt paths are in many parts of town the only active transportation (and dog walking etc.) corridors free from motor vehicles. While it’s an advantage that some go above or below arterial streets, I believe the actual physical and sound distance from motor vehicles that’s the biggest plus. Bike lanes do not provide this, slip lanes (free right turns) are especially good at encouraging people to take Greenbelt paths… to the detriment of other users.

I formally considered that the Greenbelt paths are underbuilt - i.e. too narrow, in too many cases with unnecessary bollards at egress points to the street grid and some bad sightlines, too - but increasing width where possible may only serve to increase the velocity of users. 

Please note that many are called “bike paths” when - technically-speaking - they are multi-use paths. More on that in a moment….

Our current Class II bike lanes on most arteries are often not enough for side-by-side riding, an insult and more when many arteries have two lanes in the same direction.

What’s necessary is protected bike lanes - cycleways - on major arterial streets, optimized for the two general cruising speeds of their users - slower bikes and some e-scooters & faster bikes and e-bikes and some e-scooters… approximately 13 mph and 20-23 mph. They need to be wide enough to permit someone a faster device to pass two riding side-by-side going slower. That’s a necessary way to get more people to cycle in Davis and do it safety. This won’t happen if we ask people on e-bikes that travel at 20 mph without much effort to be nice, etc, or some “bike lanes for everyone” campaign. 

So, how does TOPoS relate to ADA-compliance at Davis Depot?

Well, we’re not at the train station just yet….

From my 2007 Concept for Prague's Main Train Station

The Davis Wall 

While developers etc name many things (proposed) in Davis somewhat to fully-fictionally - e.g. “Village Farms” - not village and ex-farms, Oaktree Plaza - removed oak trees - “Village Homes” - sorry to go anti-sacred cow but where’s the cobbler?,  “Palomino Place”  - lack of horses, you know, like Wildhorse, ‘North Davis Creek” - like it as a wild feature but not as a development, whose creators seem to have created that name… what about the huge barrier to cycling and mobility device use running east-west across the lower third of Davis?

Every existing grade-separated crossing of I-80 and/or the railroad tracks has approximately an 6.5% to 8%. The exception is the section of  the Putah Creek Parkway multi-user path going under the train tracks and up to the Arboretum.. The section going up from under I-80 to Research Park Drive is steep too, but fortunately short.

The new section of the multi-user path that’s part of the 80-Richards interchange project and which goes under its new ramps will have a 4.2% gradient. This is a standard design practice for multi-use paths, though some go to 5%. To be ADA-compliant everything above 5% needs railings and repeating short sections of max 2% gradient.  Thus, the existing over-crossings on Pole Line and even the Dave Pelz bridge are not compliant. The new over-crossing of SR-113 in Woodland is 5% or less

The planned campus side of the Promenade over-crossing will be 4.2%, but the project side - the City side - will be 8%.  

Why 8%? Because there’s apparently no space for a longer route on the project side. Why 8%? Because the full City Council brought what was then generally known as “Nishi 2.0” forward to a citywide vote without an agreement with Union Pacific that there would be an undercrossing (that would be under 5%). Why 8%? Because pro-Nishi 2.0 materials showed a visual of an undercrossing, whereas the actual text of the development agreement said “grade-separated crossing”. It was a con-job, and so sloppy and apparently embarrassing that it was not officially-revealed by the City until May 2023 that Union Pacific officially-rejected the undercrossing proposal that the developer and partners made in the fall of 2018, a few months after the Nishi 2.0 vote. The gradient is so unusable that City staff agreed months ago that likely nearly everyone traveling by foot, mobility device or bike from Promenade towards campus (and Downtown) will use the existing under-crossing mentioned above on the Putah Creek Parkway. (A proposed mitigation of the I-80 “Improvement Project” is a widening of the multi-user path along the Downtown side of the Arboretum, but the undercrossing (tunnel) will not be widened, so it will remain a pinch point.) 

The 'Davis Wall" is nor necessarily above-grade. It's a barrier caused by both infrastructure and institutions. Minor walls in Davis could also include the H St "Bike Tunnel" towards F St, or a lack of active transportation crossings of SR-113 - even though they are at-grade and level - or even the noise produced by all road infrastructure

Are we almost at the train station?

Going back around ten years, the City performed an audit and outreach process related to walking and cycling access to schools in the City. Amongst other things, it correctly and wisely revealed that children living on East Olive Drive had a huge barrier to get to Montgomery Elementary, closest as the bird flies (and to other schools such as Peregrine or in East Davis, etc).

The solution was a ramp from the east end of Olive Drive to Pole Line, thus forming an aggregate multi-path towards Montgomery heading down and under Pole Line, under Cowell Blvd, past Playfields Park, etc.

The ramp had to get up to Pole Line BUT also leave room for the Olive Drive off-ramp from WB I-80 to remain open. To be clear, the latter was not stated at the time, not when it was finally decided by Caltrans to close the exit - though it’s not yet structurally-closed: This may be an innocent contingency in case there’s a complication in construction of 80-Richards, or Caltrans may decide to change its mind.

The resulting ramp is ADA-compliant, no more than 8%. As mentioned above, everything else in the region and beyond - I scoured recent, relevant recipient designs from the Active Transportation Program, a Federally-funded program administered by the State of California and provider of most of the funding for the Olive-Pole Line connector - is 5% or less. 

From my unfortunately non-conclusive research on the issue, I provisionally-conclude that it was never, ever the intention of ADA to result in 8% ramps that are about 400 long and shared with people on bikes. The gradient and length creates multiple issues:

• It’s difficult to control speed whilst heading down on a bike, and above 12 mph or so the ADA-required undulations cause a bike and its human to nearly jump. 
• The relative lack of width combined with mentioned speed doing down makes collisions between users going in opposite directions a possibility.
• The gradient makes it difficult for people on non-e-bikes to travel up; this is made worse by the undulations which make it hard to get any kind of rhythm IF one can muster the strength and stamina. 

It’s not really good for anyone except for people on e-bikes, and more or less impossible for e.g. parents taking children to school with non-electric cargo bikes. This is the epitome of non-equitable infrastructure, especially in a “family”, “bike” etc etc. Davis. 

(Why did this happen? I will take part of the blame, as I was on the Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission at the time. But I am not a licensed etc. traffic engineer. The licensed etc. traffic engineering firm that designed it didn’t say a thing… the licensed etc traffic engineer for the City of Davis… didn’t exist at the time. There was no senior-level traffic engineer in Davis from 2017 until 2022.  I also think that the funder should have noticed these technical issues, and returned the grant application for revisions.)

Please think about these issues when you observe people using the Connector - How many people get off their bikes to go up? How many are actually using it at all?

Station Access from Olive

It’s worth noting that the approval for what was then called Lincoln40 and is now Ryder Apartments included both a below-Street Standards width for the newly-built sidewalk on the project side of Olive as well as a hard “no” to bring the bike lane up to the Street Standards minimum, and the same for the bike lane on the south side of the street. This would have resulted in less land for the Apartments. 

(As part of the promised closure of the on-ramp, there’s been some vague promise of a shared street concept for Olive. It’s also worth noting that the bike lane-ish space on most of the EB side, east of In & Out has cars parked in it. Staff has refused to change it and the police have not enforced a thing).

The easement on the west end of Ryder - is it too short to allow for a 5% grade from the sidewalk at Olive Dr to the underpassage? It’s not clear: The 30% seems to show a path that’s two-thirds 8% grade closer to the station and then level in its remaining third to Olive. The original concept back during the Lincoln40 approval process had some kind of corkscrew-based overcrossing. A better approach - well, from Pole Line - would have been a long ramp with a mild gradient situated in what’s now the back of the Ryder property, circling to the undercrossing. Sigh. I think a good traffic engineer could have identified it as a partial solution. 

OK, we’re finally at the train station!

Lack of Specific Design Experience?

WSP - designing the station improvement for Amtrak -  is a huge, multinational engineering firm with a massive portfolio even just in the train station/mobility hub sub-sector, with many prominent examples that will facilitate the expansion of sustainable mobility across the country and beyond.  That’s not up for debate. 

Based on a short discussion with its engineers present at the outreach event earlier this year, they’ve worked with Amtrak on many ADA-improvement projects. That’s great. 

What I don’t see on their website is a lot of… bikes. Cycling is just one part of a robust sustainable mobility program, but I just don’t see any highlighted examples for cycling infrastructure nor for ADA infrastructure for train station access combined with cycling infrastructure not necessarily focused on train station access. I am happy if I am in error about this… but the bottom line perhaps is that I don’t see any evidence of an earlier or under-construction WSP project relevant to our specific needs in Davis. 

I’ve not had time to research it in detail, but I don’t think Amtrak has a coherent, strategic plan for bicycle and rail multi-modality. (Again, prove me wrong!). If there’s not much there, then it’s fair to assume that WSP didn’t have a lot of direction on the matter. 

If no one cycled in Davis, and everyone arrived at Davis Depot by car or bus and walked or went by mobility device etc to the platforms, things would be okay. (As the entire station is not being rebuilt - this could include a large plaza with a very, very gradual gradient leading to bicycle parking and above that the platforms accessed by escalator or elevator - things would be amazing. This is basically the template for new or rebuilt train stations in the Netherlands. )

But okay is good. Great would be a 100% elevator path option for people in mobility devices from both sides of the station; the current plan only has an elevator between the underpassage and the new center platform. The “okay” is ADA-compliant, and for this and other reasons if I was only walking to the train I would not mind that it takes more time than in the current design (rail services will have shorter delays while approaching the station that might make up for that). 

But not everyone who is arriving at Davis Depot is coming by car or bus and foot and mobility device etc, and many people traveling this way in both directions - from Downtown or Olive Dr, South Davis, Promenade - are not going to or from the trains at all.

Their 30% Davis Depot design, however and sadly, builds upon the TOPoS qualities of the Olive to Pole Line Connector. It contains:

• An undulating ramp on both sides of the station. 
• A bicycle wheel gutter on the wide, expressive stairs. (This solution should only be used to retrofit existing stairs, not in new builds. The best underground bike parking facilities have very long ramps which are sometimes cycleable; platforms are accessed as mentioned above in the Dutch example.)
• In addition, the overall design contains:
• No hint of bicycle parking on the Olive Dr side of the station
• Only some kind of vague mention of bike parking on the Downtown side, and nothing for large, cargo bikes, or the more expensive e-cargo bikes. (Imagine if SUV’s couldn’t be parked at the station). 
• No provision for eventually connecting toward J St (this would enable people walking or cycling from the east to avoid any freight train blockages and in aggregate with the crossing to Olive Dr would make illegal encroachment of the track areas less likely)
  No provision for eventually connecting under H St, and even to a below-grade entrance of the new apartment building in the old Ace home furnishings space).
• Too much regret at “losing” car parking in a City that is supposed to prioritize active transportation. We’re not yet called Not the Car Parking Capital of the USA for nothing. 

Here are some scenarios to illustrate the issues, with approaches from all directions and origins:

A family from South Davis heads toward the train: an adult with two kids in a fancy e-cargo bike - manages the climb up Pole Line but struggles on the way down the Connector, fortunately mostly without any other traffic. After heading down Olive they make a more than hard right onto the ramp which has a similar gradient to the Connector. They share the ramp - train departure is approaching -  with a few people walking at one speed, a single person in a motorized mobility device going a bit faster and some people on bikes originating in Downtown headed towards Olive Dr from the opposite direction. They reach the Downtown side. The kids get out of the bike and the adult pushes the heavy bike up the long steep ramp. They walk to the short-term design bike parking (Varsity racks etc which are currently used), lock their bike, walking down the stairs, walk up the ramp to the platform. When they return to Davis Depot at the end of the day the bike is, quite obviously, not there. (Option is that what’s not there is a fancy adaptive bike). 

An individual who uses a manual mobility device comes from South Davis by car via Richards Blvd. They are slowed by congestion in the Richards Tunnel, park in an ADA space and then take the ramp to the underpassage and attempt to take the elevator to the platform. The elevator is not working, so they have to take the ramp. They barely make the train. 

Two UCD students who live in South Davis travel by bike from Downtown. They’ve had a beer each, are only a bit tipsy, below the legal limit. They head down the undulating ramp, perhaps a bit too fast, but it’s steep. They don’t notice that the train has just arrived.  At the hairpin turn, one loses traction but recovers a bit just before nearly slamming into someone with a guide dog who lives on Olive Drive, headed Downtown.  The other stops at the bottom just as people from the arriving trains start arriving at the bottom of the ramp. 

A Ryder resident who uses a motorized mobility device exits their building via the west entrance, and has to immediately head to the left, using the sidewalk, turning right onto the sidewalk on Olive and then over to the ramp. Not direct and a waste of time. 

These are all worst-case scenarios, and certainly more likely when there’s a concurrence of uses: People going to or from trains, people headed to or from Olive Dr with no train objective… and multiple user types: walking, mobility device, slow bike, fast bike, heavy bike etc.). It won’t be like this all day; it might be like this at peaks. It cannot be made un-toxic with enforcement, signage or slogans. It makes the Depot more dangerous than it should be. 

Language, language: Note that the 30% design shows a “bike/ped easement” and a “bike-ped connection” for what’s formally a multi-use path that’s optimized for people using mobility devices, ideally without the presence of people moving faster than them. 

From my Concept for Davis Depot

Solutions?

I sent in comments and a design concept to the BTSSC in advance of their April 13, 2023 meeting that’s referenced in the Staff Report for tonight’s meeting. That meeting was not recorded. I saw no reference to my design or comments in the minutes and Commissioner comments apparently focused only on the underpass or overpass options, nothing about gradients, shared use, bike parking etc. 

Following the outreach events earlier this year - which were quite informal and according to tonight’s Staff Report again focused only on over- or under- I drew up a more detailed concept for modifications, and discussed this in person with City of Davis Staff in March of this year. I’ve developed a bit further, so here goes nuthin’....

The main strategic elements are:

• Separate users on the most problematic sections of the project area.
• Create a more direct path for target users using mobility devices covered by ADA.
• Reduce unnecessary transits through the station whilst maintaining a desire to use active transportation through and to/from the station.
• Reduce unnecessary visits to the platform by people meeting arriving passengers. 
• Reduce unnecessary transits by motor vehicle through the Richards tunnel
• Plan for likely significant demand from residents of Promenade, only one intersection and a short, mostly level ride away. 
• Amend formal agreements as necessary related to provision of private vehicle parking at Davis Depot, and negotiate use of part of the parking at Ryder.

The main implementation elements are:

• Creating a continuous elevator choice for people with mobility devices covered by ADA. This will mean two more elevators: One on the plaza side and on the Olive Dr side.
• Implement a 4.2% (ideal) or max. 5% grade max path on the Downtown (plaza) side prioritized for people on bikes, but as backup in case the plaza-to-underpassage elevator is out of service. It should include markings etc to maintain safety within the parking lot. 
• Implement a 5% grade max path on the Olive Dr side, prioritized for people on bikes. (If the space is too short within the current easement, either extend the easement into Olive Dr or add length within (below the parking lot grade), or add a second back up elevator)
• Create an ADA-compliant path directly from the west egress of Ryder Apartments to the Olive Dr side elevator. 
• Create an inviting seating area oriented towards the elevator and stairs on the plaza side, so that arriving passengers - not heading to their cars - will know exactly where to meet. Include cover for shade and inclement weather, and space for e.g. a small food cart or two. 
• Implement ADA-only parking on the existing Ryder lot (so people don’t have to drive through the Richards tunnel.)
• Design under passages on plaza side to facilitate further phase under passages towards J St and G St. 

Bicycle parking: 

Strategy: Create an equal level of bicycle parking security for all train passengers, whether for all-day or overnight,

Implementation:

• A small amount of short-term parking, e.g. for people doing station business or waiting for arrivals. 
• Group-room based parking based on technology and structures used by BikeLink (operator of the current bike lockers) at BART stations such as Ashby and Embarcadero. Include space for bikes of all reasonable sizes. These parking rooms will be expandable: They will have a fixed portal area but can be extended by addition of glass and metal as demand warrants: 
• The plaza side group room will be located close to the elevator. 
• The Olive Dr side group room will be built over the under-passage, with access from the Ryder parking lot (note that many private properties in Davis allow transit between the local street grid and e.g. Greenbelt paths). Build close to the elevator: People who use the bike parking, Ryder residents and mobility device users will be encouraged to use the elevator. 
• Relocate short term parking racks to Downtown or other needed areas.
• Relocate/sell e-lockers to local or regional Park(Bike)& Ride facilities. 

Note on passive and other communication about likely under passage congestion: Users transiting the under passage will learn that if there’s no train on the platform or approaching it, there’s less likely to be users just getting off the train. While signage as a solution will not likely not be effective, it might be useful to consider some kind of active sign, e.g. a pictogram of a train etc, that is lit up during the a specific period of time, e.g. 5 minutes before every train departs and 3 to 5 min after it leaves. This may help normally better behaving people be more aware of possible issues. 

Staff told me that the ideas for bike parking on the Olive Dr side of the station were appreciated and they promised to ask some questions about gradients on the Olive side. They said they would look into a design that would allow for further undercrossings towards J St and under H St. 

In early April I corresponded about the issue with staff from Capitol Corridor. It was made clear to me that ADA-access was Amtrak’s priority, not cycling, and that funding could not be used for improving cycling, at least not as a priority of the project, but that further cooperation was possible between all the partner

My response at this juncture - which I hope I have made clear by now - is that if the station and approaches do not respect the true and equitable limits of shared space, barrier will remain for the user of mobility devices, and for ADA compliance. A lack of optimization in this area will also improve bike & rail multi-modality less than it could, and will improve conditions for cycling and walking in Davis less than it could.

By Elaine Roberts Musser

I was appalled with City Council’s response to the apprehension many expressed at the City Council meeting on June 4 about the proposed midterm city budget and 1% sales tax increase. Concerned citizens were gaslighted, accused of seeking revenge for the commission mergers and engaging in hyperbole. (Gaslighting in this context is manipulating citizens into questioning their own perception of reality to avoid accountability for questionable behavior.)

The fact of the matter is we only pointed out things the Finance & Budget Commission would’ve zeroed in on, were it still in existence (but hasn’t been for almost a year). But as we know, the current City Council (minus Councilmember Neville) voted to eliminate this commission in favor of a more generic Fiscal Commission that has not yet met, now manned with new commissioners who are mostly commission inexperienced.

Here are the problems we highlighted:

• No city audit in three years;
• A general fund reserve of 7.5%, half the 15% it should be;
• One time gimmicks/delays: suspension of paying down $42 million in unfunded liability of employee healthcare benefits; reduction of $1.5 million originally intended for pavement management;
• A 1% sales tax increase, to offset general fund reserves and to pay for additional services/programs. What new services/programs is purposely vague.

In other words, the City Council wants us to approve a 1% sales tax increase, in essence a blank check with virtually no accountability, insisting we trust them to make responsible decisions. Their conduct has hardly inspired confidence!

Come on Greenwald.  Seriously?

When people fought decades ago to save land from development, forever, do you believe what they were really fighting for was to save the land from development 'forever, or until there was pressure to build housing, whichever comes first' ?