Entries categorized "Environment"

Dangerous Bike Lanes: Automobile Normativity Breeds Neglect (Part 1 of 3)

 

PXL_20240815_190057157.RAW-01.COVER

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? 

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].


The Gravel Mining Companies Operating Adjacent to Cache Creek are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Yolo County Surface Mine Reclamation Ordinance

The following was emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] on Feb 7, 2025 with a request that the memo be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors

From:  Alan Pryor, Chair – Sierra Club Yolano Group
To:       Yolo County Planning Commissioners
Date:   February 7, 2025
Re:       The Gravel Mining Companies Operating Adjacent to Cache Creek are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Yolo County Surface Mine Reclamation Ordinance

On behalf on the Sierra Club Yolano Group, attached please find a report in which numerous violations of Yolo County’s Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance are disclosed and documented.   Download Yolo County Gravel Mining C

Further, these violations were not disclosed last year to the Planning Commission when it was charged with certifying the 2023 Annual Compliance Report regarding off-channel gravel mining as required by County Code.

Instead, as explained in the attached report, false representations that all of the mining companies were in compliance with the provisions of all applicable mining ordinances in the State and Yolo County were made to the Planning Commission in Findings of Fact statements.

The ongoing failure by the County to enforce the provisions of the applicable mining ordinances in Yolo County has resulted in continued production and bioaccumulation of methyl mercury to excessive levels in fish in most of the impoundment pits on the mining sites and required Lake Management Plans to remediate the problems have not been implemented. These compliance shortcomings have also resulted in the ongoing failure by the mining companies to fully restore formerly mined farmland back to its pre-existing soil quality and crop productivity. 

This is fully explained in the attached report entitled, “Yolo County Gravel Mining Companies are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance_2-7-25”.

We request that the Planning Commission refrain from wrongfully certifying that mining companies are in compliance with Yolo County mining ordinances in the future. We additionally request that the Planning Commission not permit or entitle any future new mines or extensions or expansions of existing mines in Yolo County until such mining companies are in full compliance with all existing ordinances.

Toward that end,  we ask that the following questions be addressed with detailed written answers.

Continue reading "The Gravel Mining Companies Operating Adjacent to Cache Creek are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Yolo County Surface Mine Reclamation Ordinance" »


Draft EIR for Village Farms released for public comment

Screen Shot 2025-02-02 at 3.24.20 PM
The project site is bounded by Pole Line Road to the east; East Covell Boulevard to the south; the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline, F Street, and Cannery development to the west; and Davis Paintball, Blue Max Kart Club, and agricultural land to the north.


By Roberta Millstein

On January 7, the City of Davis released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Village Farms Davis Project for public review.  The approximately 497.6-acre project site is located north of East Covell Boulevard, east of F Street, and west of Pole Line Road in a currently unincorporated portion of Yolo County, California.  The City has invited public comment on this document for a 45-day period extending from January 7, 2025 through February 25, 2025. (Sorry for the late notice, but there is still time to submit comments).  EIRs are part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.

The DEIR materials can be found within the ‘CEQA Documents and Information’ tab at: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/village-farms-davis

It's a very long document, but citizens can start with:

And then, you can peruse particular areas of interest or concern:

Continue reading "Draft EIR for Village Farms released for public comment" »


Update on Suisun City’s Council Meeting on Expanding City Boundaries and Exploring Land Annexation

SolanoMap

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.

Continue reading "Update on Suisun City’s Council Meeting on Expanding City Boundaries and Exploring Land Annexation" »


URGENT: Attend Suisun City Council Meeting Discussion on Expanding City Limits

 

Map
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.”

Continue reading "URGENT: Attend Suisun City Council Meeting Discussion on Expanding City Limits" »


Tree Davis and Central Park Gardens Seek Volunteers to Help Grow Public Green Spaces!

IMG_0384
Master Gardener Peggy Smith teaches volunteers about propagating perennial plants in Central Park Gardens

Application Deadline: January 10

(From press release) Are you passionate about the environment and looking for a meaningful way to give back to your community? Tree Davis, in collaboration with Central Park Gardens, is excited to announce its Green Volunteer Training program, inviting individuals to take an active leadership role in nurturing sustainable green spaces in Davis.

Through this program, volunteers will have the unique opportunity to contribute to the beautification and sustainability of local parks, gardens, and trees. Tree Davis and Central Park Gardens welcome all who want to make a positive environmental impact, whether they are an experienced gardener or someone eager to learn.

Following a Zoom orientation session on January 23rd from 6-7 pm, the training will be held on Sundays from 9 am to 1 pm on January 26, February 2, and February 9. Hands-on training with expert instructors will include planting, pruning, and weed management for the care of young trees and a variety of native and drought tolerant garden plants. Trainees will also learn leadership skills and tips for engaging volunteers in landscape improvement and stewardship projects.

After completion of the training, volunteers will be asked to commit to volunteering at least once a month for a year with either Tree Davis or Central Park Gardens. Both organizations offer flexibility in scheduling with options for assisting as a team leader for weekend events or working more independently on weekdays.

Apply today

Don't miss out on this opportunity—apply now to secure your spot and be part of this impactful program! Have questions? Contact Hope from Tree Davis at [email protected].

Become part of the Central Park Gardens and Tree Davis volunteer teams and help maintain and enhance the city’s greenspaces, playing a key role in creating vibrant urban landscapes across Davis.

Learn more and apply by January 10 at https://www.treedavis.org/green-volunteer/. A $20 training fee is requested to cover materials.


UC Davis Arboretum and Public Garden Seeks Weekly Volunteer Gardeners

Volunteers next to large weed bin

Apply by Monday, Jan. 13

(From press release) Are you passionate about nature, eager to learn new skills, and ready to give back to your community? The UC Davis Arboretum and Public Garden invites you to join its dedicated team of gardening volunteers in 2025!

Volunteering with the UC Davis Arboretum and Public Garden is an opportunity to connect with others who share your love for the outdoors, gain hands-on experience in sustainable gardening practices, and enjoy perks like early access to plant sales at the Arboretum Teaching Nursery, and seasonal events. It’s a rewarding way to spend your time while contributing to one of UC Davis’s most beloved spaces.

Gardening volunteers work alongside expert horticultural staff to maintain and beautify Arboretum and Public Garden landscapes and work in teams that focus on specific areas. Each week, volunteers and staff collaborate to ensure these landscapes remain vibrant and inviting for the community.

Key Details:

  • Application Deadline: Jan. 13, 2025
  • Commitment: One year, with weekly team shifts of two hours on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday mornings (flexible schedules accommodated).
  • Training Program: A comprehensive training program will be held in winter 2025. Classes include expert instruction and hands-on projects covering topics like plant identification, pruning, tool care, and weed management.
  • Training Dates: Thursdays, 9 a.m.-noon (Jan. 30, Feb. 6, Feb. 13, Feb. 20, Feb. 27, March 6).
  • Training Fee: $20 materials fee, payable on the first day of training.

Apply Today

Space is limited, so don’t wait to secure your spot! Have questions? Contact UC Davis Arboretum and Public Garden Headquarters at (530) 752-4880 or [email protected].

Join the UC Davis Arboretum and Public Garden weekly gardening volunteer team and help them continue to create beautiful, thriving landscapes that inspire and engage the community.

Learn more and apply by January 13, 2025:  https://arboretum.ucdavis.edu/volunteer


Thurs, Jan 23: New book on Aldo Leopold's land ethic at the Avid Reader

Millstein Avid Reader Event AnnouncementFrom the Department of Shameless Self-Promotion, I bring you an announcement of an upcoming event for my recently-published book: The Land Is Our Community: Aldo Leopold’s Environmental Ethic for the New Millennium (University of Chicago Press).   Mark your calendars now for this free event, one month from today!

Event info:

Thursday Jan 23rd, 2025
6:30 PM-7:30 PM
Avid Reader
617 2nd Street
Davis, CA
 
Publisher's book description:

Continue reading "Thurs, Jan 23: New book on Aldo Leopold's land ethic at the Avid Reader" »


Letter to Chancellor May from Fossil Free UCD

The following was emailed to Chancellor May on December 11, 2024.

Dear Chancellor May: 

We write with appreciation for the actions campus staff are taking to reduce UC Davis’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to ask you to ensure that UCD sets strong goals for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions reductions in response to UCOP’s call for campus targets for all UCs to be submitted by 1/1/2025 (for background see here).

Specifically, we would like UCD to officially establish targets of 75% reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions below the 2019 baseline by 2030, 81% by 2035, and 95% by 2040, which are the feasible potential reductions identified by our own Fossil Fuel-Free Pathway Plan (FFFPP).

We view the strong intermediate 2030 target from our campus FFFPP as particularly important, given the urgency of the climate crisis. Communicating around near-term goals that are meaningful for our undergraduate students will show them our commitment to leading on the climate crisis. 

We would also like to encourage campus to accelerate the process for tracking and reducing Scope 3 emissions (those generated off-campus, for example by travel and commuting). The state is requiring public and private companies to submit annual reports of such emissions by 2030 (a date which may be moved up to 2027), and strong near-term Scope 3 reductions will be needed to set us on a track toward UCOP’s goal to “reduce total emissions (scope 1, 2, and 3) at least 90% by 2045 without relying on carbon offsets.” We would like to be a part of campus discussions around Scope 3 targets and processes.

Finally, we would like to let you know that a group of us has formally asked the Academic Senate to consider a detailed proposal for a Climate Crisis General Educational (GE) Requirement so that all UCD undergraduates will graduate with some background in climate science, action, and justice concepts. This one-course requirement would probably be allowed to overlap with other GEs so as not to increase time-to-graduation. We are happy to provide further details, and hope we can count on your support to make UCD a climate education leader. UC San Diego adopted such a requirement last year, starting for the class entering Fall 2024.

Continue reading "Letter to Chancellor May from Fossil Free UCD " »


Voting for Harris is Voting for These Power Women

Wonderfulwomen
Venessa Chang - Department of Energy, Lina Khan - Federal Trade Commission, Julie Su - Department of Labor

By Scott Steward

I am motivated to keep Venessa Chang, Lina Khan and Julie Su in power (see bios below). These women are in charge of our government’s renewable energy future, market, and wage equity.  That goes very much away if Trump wins. 

Against Trump’s authoritarian challenge, good men and good women have come together in associations where differences are put aside to elect Harris/Walz.

Indivisible Yolo (Indivisibleyolo.org) has built a platform of action here at home. For the next two weeks, the aim is to prevail in defending democracy.

Get involved. IY has already paved the way - training at no cost.  indivisibleyolo.org.  Weekdays and weekends. Canvassing to win congressional districts in California. Calls to win abortion rights in Arizona. Volunteers virtually go where they are needed.   You need a computer and a cell phone to be fully able to help.   It's the most important 2 weeks ever.

When we call, text, knock we win!  Come join in!    

(this message is provided by the author alone and not any organization)

Continue reading "Voting for Harris is Voting for These Power Women" »


Reminder - TODAY - renown experts give climate lecture on UCD campus

Storer Lecturship in the Life Sciences: How Decades of Climate Denial, Disinformation and Doublespeak by Big Oil Fueled the Climate Crisis

ClimateLectureTuesday October 22, 4:00 - 7 pm ARC Ballroom (and Zoom)

Register here: https://bit.ly/102224StorerReg (or use QR code in flyer).   All are welcome.  Please register soon to help ensure an accurate headcount.

Speakers:

Continue reading "Reminder - TODAY - renown experts give climate lecture on UCD campus" »


Free climate lecture on UCD campus, Tues Oct 22

Storer Lecturship in the Life Sciences: How Decades of Climate Denial, Disinformation and Doublespeak by Big Oil Fueled the Climate Crisis

ClimateLectureTuesday October 22, 4:00 - 7 pm ARC Ballroom (and Zoom)

Register here: https://bit.ly/102224StorerReg (or use QR code in flyer).   All are welcome.  Please register soon to help ensure an accurate headcount.

Speakers:

Continue reading "Free climate lecture on UCD campus, Tues Oct 22" »


Sierra Club Yolano Group Opposes New Changes Proposed for our Revered Davis Citizen Advisory Commissions

The changes will threaten Commission independence and stifle innovation

 By the Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee

A recent op-ed by Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser (see here)  alerted Davis residents to a concern with a new proposal before the Davis City Council that has the potential to substantially limit citizen input into environmental issues in the City of Davis. 

According to the op-ed, Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking Davis City Commissioners for feedback on their proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”

Carson and Roberts Musser state:

“…in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto -- by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.” In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work.” (Bold emphasis added)

If enacted, we find this proposal deeply concerning and undemocratic.  Historically, at least six of Davis’s volunteer citizen commissions regularly dealt with environmentally-related matters: Tree; Open Space and Habitat; Natural Resources; Bicycling, Transportation, and Street Safety; Utilities; and Recreation and Park Commission (for the latter, with topics such as the use of toxic pesticides and drought-tolerant plantings).

Continue reading "Sierra Club Yolano Group Opposes New Changes Proposed for our Revered Davis Citizen Advisory Commissions" »


Palomino Place Project receiving comments on environmental impact report until Sep 23

By Roberta Millstein

Screen Shot 2024-09-02 at 1.29.22 PMA Davisite reader sent me the following information.  Until that point, I hadn't realized that comments were being sought on the environmental impact report for the proposed Palomino Place Project, so I thought I would share the information with other Davisites, too.  I haven't seen anything in the Davis Enterprise or Vanguard about it (though it is possible I just missed it).

Apparently, the draft Subsequent EIR ("subsequent" to the EIR from 2009) for the Palomino Place Project has been available since early August. Comments on the draft are due September 23. Comments would typically point out errors, inconsistencies, omissions of data or analyses, conclusions not based on evidence, or failures to provide discussion required by CEQA.

As the post below indicates, there is also a public meeting about the project on Sep. 11.

City link to Palomino Place documents:

https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/palomino-place

Draft Subsequent EIR released August 2024:

https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/Draft-Palomino-Place-SEIR-August%202024.pdf

Notice of Availability (NOA) of Palomino Place Subsequent EIR:

https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/NOA-20240807-Palomino-Place-SEIR.pdf

Continue reading "Palomino Place Project receiving comments on environmental impact report until Sep 23" »


Will council let out-of-town landlord ignore Climate Policy?

Time to enforce the Law at Oakshade Mall?

By Alan ”Lorax” Hirsch

Image001 1705
Near Treeless North Parking at Oakshade Mall

To give the landlord more flexibility to find tenants, Davis council is being asked to rezone the Oakshade Mall (Safeway)  located  at south Pole Line Rd x Cowell.  This is before council  on the Tuesday 8/27/24 agenda ( see  staff report  item #4).   However this landlord is notorious for their neglect of its trees and is in violation of city tree protection ordinance.

So, while makes sense for city to update zoning in response to a changing retailing climate,  it also  makes sense to do updates in city’s  relationship with this out-of-town landlord in regard to the Climate Crisis and city’s  CAAP policies, changes to sustain  Davis’s quality of life by deal with global heating.

More Shade is Existential

It is forecast that half Davis’s  summer days will be over 100 degree in 50 years. Unshaded asphalt reachs 140+ degrees in those conditions.  Davis’s CAAP climate plan appropriately calls for more tree shade as part our adaption plan.  To have that shade in 50 year tree need to be planted now. And investing in tree is just good marketing sense of a long-term landlord-  as contrast with incentive for on-site property manager who  often just think about next quarter’s cash flow so look everywhere to cut maintenance cost.

Image002 528
30 year old oak at Oakshade Mall

But beyond increased tree shade called for Davis CAAP climate plan, this shopping center development has for years been in  gross violation of the city’s  1990’s tree ordinance under which it was approved.  That ordinance required “50% parking lot shade in 15years”  The landscape plan the developer/landlords signed off as part of plan- check had them agree to no just plant trees, but maintain the newly planted trees to obtain that 50% tree shade level.  This was not an impossible requirement:  If you drive West of Cowell just 2 block to the Kaiser clinic you can see tree can be grown in Parking lots.

Image003 375
In the past, a large shade tree was (killed?) and replaced with small shrub...that was then topped

However, the landlord & his property managers have not grown and maintain trees as agreed over near 30 years the mall has been in operation. And when trees have died they have either not been replace, or replace with a shorter species. And the irrigation system has been neglected.

As you can see from attached recent arial pictures- (and picture in below linked article from 2018), the landlord has not met their legal requirement of 50% shade.   A visit the site will make obvious the gross number of  missing, stunted and dead trees.  The north parking area is nearly tree-free.

Continue reading "Will council let out-of-town landlord ignore Climate Policy? " »


Sierra Club Presents Awards to Diana Almendariz and Adelita Serena for Outstanding Service to Communities and the Environment

Diana and Adelita
Diana Almendariz and Adelita Serena (Photo credit: Juliette Beck).

(From press release) The Sierra Club, the nation’s largest and oldest environmental organization, is pleased to recognize two outstanding environmental justice leaders – Diana Almendariz and Adelita Serena – for their dedication to protecting and enhancing the local environment for people and nature in the Yolo bioregion.

The Sierra Club Yolano group’s geographical reach extends from Southern Colusa County through the entirety of Yolo County to Northern Solano County and is within the ancestral homeland of the Patwin-Wintun people. The awards were granted by the Yolano Group to the two indigenous women for their work to engage community members in protecting the ecological health and sustainability of the region.

Diana Almendariz is a Cultural Practitioner of Maidu/Wintun and Hupa/Yurok traditions, heritage and experiences. She is a visionary culture-bearer, storyteller, naturalist, educator and visual artist who has been dedicated to the cultural and ecological revival of her Native homelands for over three decades.

Almendariz teaches homeland-based ecological stewardship using traditional materials such as tule – a wetland reed - to make baskets, mats, cordage, dolls, and boats, blending arts, culture, and ecology into the learning.

Continue reading "Sierra Club Presents Awards to Diana Almendariz and Adelita Serena for Outstanding Service to Communities and the Environment" »


Reminder: still time for citizens to give input on environmental review of "Shriner's" project

Location of proposed Shriners project

Comments are due by Monday, August 12.  Details are on this earlier post:

https://www.davisite.org/2024/07/notice-of-preparation-nop-for-so-called-shriners-property-project.html

You can send your input, comments or responses (including the name for a contact person in your agency) to:

Attn: Dara Dungworth, Principal Planner
City of Davis Department of Community Development and Sustainability
23 Russell Boulevard
Davis, CA 95616
[email protected]


New Commissions are Opportunity for more public participation and Innovation

By Alan Hirsch, Davis Lorax

The controversial city council plan for commission consolidation and refocus is going into effect this summer. This is a rare opportunity for reform I hope is not missed. 

Let us begin by restating the overarching goals council set forward in this reform: 

Davis Council Resolution 24-079 May 2024

Guiding Principle for New Commission Structure

. City Commissions should act at all times with the understanding that guiding principles are at the core of their work.

  1. Promote and embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion
  2. Prioritize environmental and social justice
  3. Make space for community engagement
  4. Balance environmental and fiscal sustainability
  5. Strive for innovation and human progress

The first meeting of the new Climate and Environmental Justice Commission on 7/22 Monday is precedent setting as it can begin to put implementation meat on the bone of these principles by:

  1. Better Prioritize Environmental  Justice than in the past  (principal B)
  2. Change meeting practices to allow more public participation. (principle A & C)  
  3. Speed surfacing of new ideas and follow through on their implementation.  (principle E

As a first step in embracing council principles for this reorganization,  I suggest the  commission’s pass a resolution to  establish these ground rules for operation

Continue reading "New Commissions are Opportunity for more public participation and Innovation" »


Notice of Preparation (NOP) for so-called “Shriners Property Project”

Location of proposed project

Window opens for citizen input on the scope of the environmental analysis

By Roberta Millstein

Another step has been taken for a proposed housing project to the east of Wildhorse, near the Mace Curve, using the misleading name “Shriners Property Project” (misleading because the project has no current connection to the Shriners).  The site is approximately 232 acres and is currently being farmed.  The developers are proposing a 1,200-unit residential community.

Because the land is zoned for agriculture and is outside of the current City limits, it will eventually be subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of Davis’s citizens.  But first, it must undergo environmental review to produce an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and before that happens, the scope of the review must be decided on. That’s the stage we’re at now – the comment period for citizens and groups to give input on the scope and content of the environmental information to be obtained opened on July 12 and will continue through August 12.  

Further details of the project and the scope of review can be found here:

Continue reading "Notice of Preparation (NOP) for so-called “Shriners Property Project”" »


Ten Ways to Get the Yolo CAAP Back on Track

By Juliette Beck, Yolo climate justice advocate

Yolo County recently reduced their draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) - potentially the most important document to guide Yolo County residents, businesses, farmers and decision-makers in our collective response to climate breakdown. 

As a member of the Yolo Climate Emergency Coalition that set this planning process in motion, I commend the hard work and thoughtfulness of hundreds of people that contributed their energy, time, thoughts, ideas and hopes. Our goal was - and still  is - to mobilize a Just Transition to an ecological, equitable, resilient county. 

The draft plan offers a number of important and valuable actions, but the county’s consultants - Dudek - fail to chart the just transition strategies needed to avert catastrophic climate change and the accelerating impacts.

Add your response to the draft CAAP by July 10 through the comment portal at yolocaap.org. Here are some recommended changes:

Continue reading "Ten Ways to Get the Yolo CAAP Back on Track" »


Dangerous Depot

Depot1
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. 

 

Depot1a

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….

 

Depot2
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. 

 

Depot3
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.