Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

A Critique of Village Farms

In reference to the Village Farms Scoping Session

The City has asked citizens to comment on the Village Farms project. Here are mine…

by David J. Thompson

The project is based on obsolete planning principles which feature the single family home.

Preponderance of SF homes in this era is absurd for a town that thinks it’s green.

Global Warming is guaranteed and increased by this car-centric planning model.

Too few market-rate apartments for a community with such a low vacancy rate for the past 30 years. The lack of market rate apartments means tens of thousands of Students and working people will continue over paying on rent given the continued low vacancy rate.

There should be many more market rate apartments to bring down the excessive rental costs in Davis. Most of the 55.7% of Davis households (the 36,780 renters) are already overpaying rent (more than 30% of income spent on rent is HUD guideline).

Dos Pinos housing co-op has been the most successful home ownership program in Davis. 38 years later it is still providing substantial savings for its moderate income owners. It helps families time and time again rather than a one off bonanza and it’s gone forever. There are 122 households on the waiting list for DP (60 units) and the list has been closed since 2017 (2021 info from DP). There are between 6-10 turnovers per year. Why was another Dos Pinos co-op not included in Village Farms?

Dos Pinos (limited equity co-op), Aggie Village (form of UC Land Trust), Greene Terrace (limited equity condo) and the City’s Affordable Ownership program (resale limits to provide permanently affordable home for many years to come) have created over 200 permanently affordable homes which have been successfully helping almost 1,000 local Davis families over many decades. Why were none of these models included in Village Farms?

Unlike previous applications there are no permanently affordable For-Sale homes anywhere in Village Farms.

If the results for the For-Sale affordable housing are similar to previous misuses of this failed model then we will see a repeat of the previous $20 million give away of public funds to many households who scam the system. All For-Sale affordable homes must be permanently affordable to help the many in need not a one-time bonanza for the few lucky winners. The council stopped this before and should again.

Land alongside Covell should be many more market rate/affordable apartments to encourage higher bus usage. Proximity to Nugget shopping center would support non-vehicle owning renters.

Given the existing SF dominance of Village Farms few residents will turn to bus usage.

If vehicles are a heavy contributor to climate change should we as citizens be adopting an almost 100% car centric and anti-bus project.

Implied bus service within Village Farms is not financial viable due to predictable extremely low density usage.

Have Unitrans plan Village Farms for highest possible passenger usage.

We’ll be building Village Farms over the next ten years which will increase global warming and racial and income disparities in our city rather than a model which could immediately address climate change and increase inclusion.

Of 400 acres only 13.5 acres are set aside for very low and low income housing.

At 16.7% of units for very low and low income units this is below the 25% previously required and the lowest % of any project in thirty years. Why reduce low income housing to just over the minimum required. Why do the poor get less?

Placement of all low-income housing should be directly on Covell Blvd.

109 acres of park and open space set aside for city upkeep will be expensive to maintain.

Could a few of those acres be assigned to serve low income housing needs? We have an affordable housing crisis not a park/greenbelt crisis.

The population of racial minorities in Davis is substantially increased through more low income housing. There are much fewer %s of racial minorities in SF homes

Village Farms plan falls behind on our RHNA very low and low income obligations.

The Village Farms project as presented will continue the car-centric SF sub-division that has contributed extensively to global warming and racial exclusion.

Without major changes in the Village Farms proposal I will be voting NO and without major changes in the purpose and uses of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) I will be voting NO on that too. There is too much focus on funding for sale homes and not enough focus on what for me should be the highest priority of the HTF “funding more permanently affordable rentals for very low and low income households.”

We will not increase racial and economic integration and diversity if we continue to favor public actions and policies that avoid attacking and removing built in institutional segregation.

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

40 responses to “A Critique of Village Farms”

  1. Tuvia ben Olam

    I mostly agree BUT this “No!” doesn’t go quite far enough:
    Why should more modestly-priced households be near noisy – and with this project and others, even noisier – roads? They need to be near mass transit, and that doesn’t have to be a noisy artery
    Everyone with a car who lives here will drive to any destination where parking is free or cheap (so mostly everywhere). The post is correct in that buses won’t be competitive. Rail-based transport on or near Covell also won’t be competitive.
    Oaktree Plaza doesn’t have a lot going for it except for a large parking lot “just minutes away, and free, from every garage” at Not Village Not Farms.
    Then let’s talk about the insanely long drive to North Davis, where people will about to shout across the drainage ditch to invite their neighbors over…
    Then the huge increase in driving on 102 to the huge shopping centers, Home Depot, Costco etc in Woodland…. creating a corridor of death.
    So called environmentalists on the screen today/convinced the liberals it’s okay
    Once areas 10 min by foot to Campus and Downtown get densified, if the need is there we can talk about building housing here as long as it’s a 5 min walk from high-frequency light rail/streetcars on the railway ROW and Covell.

    Reply
  2. Alan Pryor

    It seems that Mr. Thompson has not looked at the latest Village Farms proposal before the City because he claims Village Farms has a “Preponderance of SF homes…” and “Given the existing SF dominance of Village Farms….”
    Following is the mix of unit types that was reported to me:
    1. Subsidized Low-Income Rental Apartments – 300 units – 16.67% (including 60 extremely low income)
    2. Attainable Starter Homes on Individual Lots – 310 units – 17.22% (vary in size – 800/1000/1200 sf per unit) (15% down payment subsidy transferable to next buyer making them permanently affordable unless the money is ripped off by the Davis Housing Trust Fund)
    3. Market Rate Townhouses & Cottages on Common Lots – 160 units – 8.88% (vary in size – 800/1000/1200 sf per unit)
    4. Market Rate Condos & Stacked Flats on Common Lots – 150 units – 8.33%
    5. Market Rate Rental Apartments – 200 units – 11.11%
    6. Market Rate Custom Home Lots – 680 units – 37.7% (Sold to small builders) (Under State law, a duplex can be built on each lot)
    Total Units = 1,800
    So the actual market rate single family homes total only 37.7% of the units. That certainly is not a “preponderance of SF homes” or reflect “F dominance of Village farms” as Mr. Thompson otherwise states.
    And if you add in the 310 Attainable Starter Homes (17.22%) with the 300 Subsidized Low-Income Rental Apartments (16.67%), you end up with a 610 low income units which is 33.89% of the total units – almost as much as the SF homes he rails against. Rather than being the lowest % of affordability in decades as Mr. Thompson suggests, it actually appears to be the highest % in decades.
    Perhaps Mr. Thompson’s views might change if he was evaluating things using actual facts in his analysis.

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    Alan: What percentage of land usage (of the approximately 400 acre site) is dedicated to Affordable housing?
    By Affordable, I’m referring to the “Subsidized Low Income Rental Apartments”, not the “Attainable Starter Homes”.
    If the “Attainable Starter Homes” are subsequently rented out, they will not be “permanently affordable” to the occupants.

    Reply
  4. David J Thompson

    It is regrettable that Mr Pryor has twisted some of my statements to suit his improbable response. I would ask Mr Pryor to use the words I used for clarification.
    “At 16.7% of units for very low and low income units this is below the 25% previously required and the lowest % of any project in thirty years. Why reduce low income housing to just over the minimum required. Why do the poor get less?”
    This was my statement and it is correct and taken from city info.
    16.7% for very low and low income is much lower than the 25% previously set aside for those low income groups. As I have stated why is Village Farms choosing to provide less VLI and LI units? Why get stingy on a few acres of 400 to ensure that fewer poor will live in Davis. By going to 16.7% Village Farms
    did offer less VLI and LI units.
    Hundreds turned out to hear Richard Rothstein talk of Segregation as the Color of Law. By providing less we are now practiciing economic segregation in Davis
    Secondly, Mr Pryor then poses for sale housing as affordalbe but none of them are affordable to VLLI and LI households.
    I do not enjoy people misuing information to mislead the public.
    Mr. Pryor, your words are hiding economic segregation which is also racial segregation.
    If the defenders of Village Homes intend this to be dialogue then face the facts. It has fewer VLI and LI than 25%

    Reply
  5. Tuvia ben Olam

    Months of comments and rebuttals about this project for several months in multiple fora and I don’t recall anyone refuting any part of my informal traffic analysis….

    Reply
  6. Alan Pryor

    David – I am not disagreeing that Village Homes has fewer LVI and LI subsidized rental apartments than 25%. I never said I did disagree with that statement.
    I instead tried to argue (obviously ineffectivel) that the true “low income” number of permanently affordable units offered in Village Farms is about 34% because you must consider the Attainable Starter Home Program as a low-income housing program.
    Why? Where else ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY is there a program under which family of modest means could buy a market-priced 800 – 1,000 sq ft home with only a 5% down. And if the proper title covenants are permanently in place to ensure the 15% equity secured by the down payment will be permanently recycled as a down payment to each successive buyer, it truly becomes permanently affordable housing program. What’s not to like about that?
    And while I am certainly aware of the racial disparities in housing, it seems you’re claiming that only building more LI and VLI subsidized rental housing will fix that. I disagree. I alternatively believe that offering a path to home ownership to people of limited means, often people of color, should be allowed participate in the generational wealth building opportunities of home ownership – the American Dream. I believe this would do far more to raise the socioeconomic status of people of color than just building more subsidized rental apartments. And that is exactly what the Attainable Starter Home program is designed to do
    And the simple fact is that this program will cost the developer far, far more to provide for the 15% down payment subsidy than it would ever cost to instead build another 300 units of subsidized rental apartments given the tax benefits of building subsidized rental housing. Do the math, even at $500,000 a home x 310 homes x 15% = $23,250,000! That’s functionally a true one-time donation on his part to provide 310 permanently affordable for-sale homes in Davis.
    Given this monetary commitment on the part of the developer toward providing a program in which people with less means are actually able to buy a first starter home, I don’t think an accusation that the developer is cheap by not putting in more subsidized LI and VLI rental housing really holds any water.
    You asked, “Why should the poor get less?” I agree they should not. I just think with this Attainable Starter Home program, the poor and lower middle class buyers of these down-payment subsidized homes will get lots, lots more long-term economic benefits than would renters if the Developer just otherwise put in an increased number of subsized low income apartments.

    Reply
  7. Eileen Samitz

    Village Farms is the worst project proposed in decades. Additional major problems with the project are that the Village Farms project proposal:
    – has massive traffic impacts currently in the Covell Blvd and Pole Line Road intersection and streets , so adding 1,800 more housing units at the Village Farms site there would be insane.
    – has an enormous 200-acre flood plain on the 390 acres site taking up more than half of it.
    – has had a long history of toxics and other contaminants issues due to the adjacent old City landfill and sewage treatment plant. There has not even been testing done yet for PFAS “forever chemicals” (many of which are carcinogenic) that are commonly found in leachates from old landfills.
    – has a lack of safe access issues particularly to cross Covell Blvd. for pedestrian and bicyclists, especially kids.
    – has massive infrastructure needs that would wind up costing Davis residents, like a $14 fire station that we do not need because 90% of the Fire Dept. calls are medical, not fire related. Instead, what is more logical is to add an Emergency Medical Service station which would cost a fraction of the cost and could be placed in any of a number of locations in East Davis.
    – furthermore the $14 million would be just to build the fire station and it would not include the massive costs for funding the staffing and operational costs into the future. Also, how is a fire engine supposed to get onto Covell Blvd. or turn on it or get through the backed-up traffic there every day?
    Village Farms is just a re-play of Covell Village with all the same problems again, but Village Farms is worse, because it has even more issues.
    And this is just the short list of why Village Farms is disastrous proposal.

    Reply
  8. Eileen Samitz

    Alan,
    But what about the enormous 200-acre flood plain and the toxics issues? How can you possibly support a project with these serious problems that can only wind up creating flooding and public health risks long term? These problems with the Village Farms site open the City to potential legal and financial liability as well as the impacts on the public.

    Reply
  9. Alan Pryor

    Eileen – Re: You incessant gripes about the suppossed dangers of building on the 100-year floodplain – I am wondering why you contually harp on the floodplain at Village Farms (which covers only a part of the norther reaches of the site) when you were an ardent and vocal supporter of West Davis Active Adult Community (now Bretton Woods) in which the “entire parcel was in the 100-year floodplain”. It seems rather hypocritical of you to so thoroughly support Bretton Woods but denigrate Village Farms which has far less percentage of the property in the 100-year floodplain.
    But in each case the properties are on the far southern reaches of the floodplain so any floods would have to be extreme to even reach the properties. Because of this, there are easy ways to remove any flooding dangers for each development including putting in ponds to hold any excess water. A good example is Northstar pond which was put in because the Northstar development was also on the most southern reaches of the 100-year floodplain. By putting in the Northstar pond, not only was the flood potential virtually emininated, but the neighborhood also gained a habitat treasure just as is planned for Village Farms.
    Or were you against the Northstar development and the Northstar Pond also?

    Reply
  10. Alan C. Miller

    Incessant gripes?
    “Can’t we all just get along?”

    Reply
  11. Eileen Samitz

    Incessant gripes? Wow…I can’t believe that you, as the Sierra Club Yolano Group Chair is advocating for a massive 390-acre project which would building on a enormous 200-acre flood plain taking up over half of the Village Farms 390-acre land! Particularly since the Sierra Club strongly oppose the last version of this project which was Covell Village.
    The Sierra Club does not support build on flood plains. Further California State passed legislature making clear that the State will no longer bail out cities financially that are foolish enough to build on huge flood plains.
    Also, Village Farms enormous flood plain is immediately adjacent to the City’s Old unlined Landfill and Sewage Plant which never had any clean up and has had a history of toxics and other contaminants leakages which were documented from the Village Farms groundwater as well.
    Bretton Woods on the other hand is adjacent to Sutter Hospital which had to invest in significant flood control and that project expanded that. But it is only 75 acres and was for senior housing and had a generous amount of affordable housing. It was not next to an old unlined landfill and sewage plant which had a history of toxics and other contaminants like Village Farms has had. There is no comparison.
    And no, I did not oppose North Star, but it was built before California was in a water drought and so building artificial ponds which will need ground water to continue makes no sense on Village Farms because it has had groundwater contamination issues. Again, there is no comparison.

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    Eileen, Alan is the Sierra Club Yolano Group Chair, but his comments are not posted as the SCYG Chair, and that distinction is important. He has not claimed to be speaking for the Sierra Club. Furthermore, the SCYG has not yet taken any position on Village Farms, as has been stated several times before. The SCYG Management Committee will discuss the project after the EIR comes out, and will decide at that time what stand to take on the project, if any.
    I posted this comment to clarify things, but if you submit another misleading comment like this, I will not post it.
    Speaking for myself, not for the SCYG.

    Reply
  13. David J Thompson

    Dear Alan,
    You keep using terms such as affordable housing and low-income to your advantage with the public. Your terms continue to be knowingly misleading.
    Point out to me where Village Farms states that those homes are meant for low-income families. I doubt that committment exists.
    They won’t count as low income in RHNA numbers so drop that claim.
    Low income is defned by HUD and the State of California as 80% below median income. In Yolo County that means below $79,300 per 4 person family.
    I doubt that anyone under $79,300 is going to qualify for any for sale home in Village Farms. Nor does Village Farms claim they will.
    So please retract your claim that those starter homes are meant for low income families in Davis. Thye are not and you should know that.

    Reply
  14. Susan Rainier

    The City needs to be assured that this is not a build and disappear developer action (as other cities have learned) when the climate events happen. The City knows about the landfill issues. Build out on floodplain makes the water go into other areas of the built community. It is very difficult to get flood insurance. These risks are to be evaluated by a City who watches out for it’s residents. Risk Management for the City should be a top priority.

    Reply
  15. George Galamba

    Just a thought on the traffic implications of Village Farms (nee Covell Village): The east side of this development will depend on Pole Line Road (aka County Road 102) for access to and from I-80 to Sacramento, where many if not most of the new residents will work. Those of us who live in the area already know that PLR is already bumper to bumper during rush hour from Covell north. Also, Covell is jam packed from PLR to I80. Adding thousands of additional cars to this route will force traffic onto Moore Blvd and Rockwell Drive to Wright Blvd where it meets Covell. PLE, as its name implies, is a two-lane county road established for light traffic and farm equipment. It was never intended as a major thoroughfare. The idea that we can continually add more development to a infrastructure designed to serve a small town is ludicrous. Either make PLR a four-lane highway between Covell and Gibson Road in Woodland or figure something else out.

    Reply
  16. Keith

    “Adding thousands of additional cars to this route will force traffic onto Moore Blvd and Rockwell Drive to Wright Blvd where it meets Covell. ”
    I’m sure the residents of Wildhorse will love that.

    Reply
  17. Susan Rainier, AIA

    Village (not) Farms (not) will create a huge carbon footprint since they will be trucking in foreign soil to raise the land in a floodplain — dumping pollution and dust into the City of Davis as they roll in. The internet is full of stories of subsidence, and wash outs of “engineered” fill on floodplains. Also, there are documented law suit stories of building near toxic dumps and old sewer plants. The toxins have fumes, rats and particulates. As a California Licensed Architect to protect Health, Safety and Wellness, I cannot endorse this project, due to the many warning signs evident.
    This is “business as usual” old way development. The new ways of Living Community Challenge calls for living in harmony with nature and preservation of vernal pools. The highest and best actions would be to work for ecological restoration of the toxic zones.
    The City of Davis is at risk of lawsuits letting this go through with the known dangers. Yet this will be for the City Council of the future. Look to your hearts – Would you want your children to live there?

    Reply
  18. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    Totally agree about “102” and a four-lane road would simply induce traffic and dangers – the latter in feeder routes at least.
    The transpo’ proposals I’ve seen include:
    1) 400m max to transit
    2) Transit passes in a TDM plan
    3) Light rail also through Wildhorse and the Cannery then south on F
    4) One-car per household
    5) Connectivity to local streets…
    6) Move housing closer to major roads
    Responses:
    1) That’s reasonable but personal cars will be so much closer
    2) OK,but see 3)
    3) There’s talk of light rail, and bus rapid transit. Putting either on Covell and F will take up one of two vehicle lanes and require removal of parking on F if there’s to be a safe, protected bike lane. So….. right. I am for it, but I’m in the minority. It’s incredibly expensive, running across the Covell overpass will require extensive enforcement of the structure.
    It reminds me that Promenade (Nishi 2.0) was brought to the the voters before there was an agreement with Union Pacific on the necessary under-crossing for walking, cycling and motor vehicles. Now UP won’t allow that and the bus and cars require an expensive and awkward structure that will be steep and annoying to use by foot or bike, and everyone in the latter two groups will have to use the existing Putah Creek Pathway, which won’t be able to handle it.
    So then, there will be some promise of light rail or BRT – there’s only a suggestion of a study for the latter in Richard McCann’s proposal in today’s Davis Vanguard – and voters will be asked to their thing before anything robust is agreed to.
    And UP apparently won’t allow an bike-ped over-crossing of their ROW to Woodland or at the very least a crossing will be huge and nuts and expensive and useless like with Promenade.
    Then this project and Bretton Woods have their magic “transit plazas” and then:
    4) Most of these cars will be used everyday
    5) There’s no good bike network from here to Downtown and Campus…. without removing parked cars. Landlords like “free” car parking near their properties. The Council won’t defy them. I lived just south of Nugget Fields for a year and very few people ride their bike anywhere from there, including Covell Nugget. People at No Village, No Farms will drive there – not a lot of VMT but a lot of problems at Covell and PLR.
    6) It’s noisy near busy roads. It’s awful. Davis puts poorer people close to noisy roads because “free earplugs”?
    Conclusion: Transportation failure. It makes some stabs at good ideas, BUT none of this matches a region dependent on cars, including for much of Davis, exclusing the campus – and the campus still has lots of parking and it’s really not expensive for tenured faculty and mid-level admin and up.
    By the way:
    WDAAC became Bretton Woods
    Nishi became Nishi 2.0 became Promenade
    Something (became something) became DISC became nothing (for now)
    Village Farms may stick because it’s a lie

    Reply
  19. South of Davis

    I’m wondering if Todd knows a single person in Davis who would give up their car and start riding their bike if we had less cars parked on the street (or even tables with free water bottles of Gatorade every half mile). For the 20 years I have lived in the area (both in town and South of Davis) I have ridden to work about half the time (I drove today in the rain) and I talk to a lot of people about bikes and few (even in Davis and even the guys I do Century rides and go mountain biking with) have any interest in riding to work or going shopping with a bike trailer (like I do) even if half the streets were “car free”.

    Reply
  20. Alan C. Miller

    TE, WHO is “talking” about light rail to Village Farms and F Street? That’s ludicrous.

    Reply
  21. Ron O

    Anyone who fails to see the connection between sprawl and increased traffic is living on a planet that I’m not familiar with.

    Reply
  22. Ron O

    EIRs previously examined traffic congestion, but have since switched to vehicle miles traveled.
    I believe the reason for this is related to the state’s interest in downplaying the impacts of development. All part of their push, in conjunction with the interests that would benefit.
    But any fool can tell you that 1 mile in congested traffic does not equal 1 mile on a free-flowing roadway – whether it’s environmental impact, cost (regarding wear and tear, increased fuel usage, time lost, and outright frustration).
    For that matter, I don’t know what assumptions are made regarding “vehicle miles traveled”.

    Reply
  23. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    South of Davis: The obvious solution here is creating conditions within the city that are similar to campus: relatively expensive parking and a relatively great cycling network. If people are not interested, it’s just sad?
    Alan: the light rail concept appeared in a piece by Tim Keller in the Davis Vanguard around a month ago… And I believe a related graphic was used in I’m more recent piece in Davisite: https://www.davisite.org/2023/12/sierra-club-yolano-group-comments-on-village-farms-scope-of-work.html. The concept connects at least denser versions of all the new projects planned for East Covell. Perhaps some kind of bus rapid transit was an alternative.
    Ron O.: there have been plenty of articles about level of service and the transition to VMT… I recommend checking out Streetsblog… And possibly Strongtowns.

    Reply
  24. Ron O

    “And the light rail concept appeared in a piece by Tim Keller in the Davis Vanguard . . .“
    (That description alone is “enough said” to judge merit and feasibility regarding whatever follows it.)

    Reply
  25. Ron O

    Regarding the push to eliminate parking and increase density on peripheral sites, it’s still sprawl.
    But more importantly, perhaps, is the fact that doing so will continue to push families to places like Woodland. So if that’s the goal, a dense “village” in Davis will certainly help accomplish that.
    Young families generally have at least two cars, maybe more when their kids become teens. And as long as a nearby community is willing to provide it (at a cheaper price to boot), their choice is obvious.
    Especially if they can also send their kids to Davis schools (and without paying the parcel tax, to boot).

    Reply
  26. South of Davis

    My question to Todd was “I’m wondering if Todd knows a single person in Davis who would give up their car and start riding their bike if we had less cars parked on the street” (sadly I don’t). His answer was “The obvious solution here is creating conditions within the city that are similar to campus: relatively expensive parking and a relatively great cycling network. If people are not interested, it’s just sad?” I think it is sad that so few people ride bikes, but if we make parking in downtown Davis as expensive as it is on campus I predict that even more business will close. I recently drove (rather than ride) to campus since I had the entire family with me (and lots of paperwork) so we could renew the kids passports at the ARC. It was a pain to first try get the parking app that the signs said I needed before finding out there was still a kiosk where I could pay with a credit card. I was talking to a long time public school teacher a while back about how childhood obesity is out of control and I said the school should require that the kids walk or ride their bikes to school (like we all did back where there were not any 200 pound 6th graders) and she said that she was pretty sure most of the fat kids would not come to school (with the district losing ADA money) if we made them walk or ride every day. It is important to plan for the world we have not the world we want. We grow vegetables and herbs at home but sadly passing a law to make every home have a raised vegetable garden will not get most people to use it and eat more fresh vegetables just like banning street parking or charging more for parking will get people to ride bikes. P.S. I am seeing more electric bikes (aka electric motorcycles with substandard lights) around town.

    Reply
  27. Ron O

    South of Davis: Regarding electric bikes, it’s only a matter of time before they become even more powerful (and subsequently regulated).
    They’re “sneaking under the radar” to some degree, so far.

    Reply
  28. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    South of Market: I didn’t say or imply forcing the situation.. so analogies about mandatory… victory gardens… are not relevant. Yes, it’s patriotic to ride a bike, walk, eat hyper-local. (Digressing: Between the the 1970’s and the 2000’s Davis cancelled a school bus program and implemented a form of school choice. Generally I am for the latter but there was no transportation complement. I am not sure how many primary and secondary school kids ride Unitrans, but its director told me that it doesn’t really work for kids below 5th grade. How in the (bleep) can we have a transit system for undergraduates but not for these young kids? The DJUSD board refuses to do a study.)
    So… the complement or counterpart etc of responsibly-priced temporary private motor vehicle storage in the public ROW and removal of parking possibilities from same Downtown is a rrrrobust transit and cycling system: Developers and proponents of e.g. Village Farms sorta kinda ’bout that but i don’t see details…. and one thing Unitrans and cycling have going for them is that many students do not own cars and in some cases permits – e.g. for intracampus travel – are not possible. So Village Farms – the other proposed places are a few minutes further from campus etc will have a reasonable non-car modal share only if many don’t own cars.
    About e-bikes, there are issues here and elsewhere with relatively high-powered vehicles not legally-defined as bicycles. But distances are long here: The Campus Travel Survey shows single digit cycling from not only the periphery of town. In other words, “motor vehicle distances” have created this problem: Among other things it’s not psychologically-interesting to cycle at 15mph (assistance max of bike share bikes) on arteries when cars are going three times as fast. The solution is not licensing or even insurance, it’s creating a core network of cycleways where people on bikes get priority at all intersections: Removing the need to accelerate from a dead stop over and over and over on a journey incentivizes slower, legal bikes.
    Ron O: Some manufacturers of legally defined e-bikes are focusing more on torque then on top speed. Eventually some “connected vehicle” thing will come into play which may e.g. limit acceleration or even assist speeds for private bikes in certain area, similar to how this happens with e-scooters and e-bikes (including on UCD campus with SPIN vehicles).
    “Most families” where have two vehicles? And why? It’s not genetic, mostly. I know gobs of people with families in some USA cities and many in Europe who don’t own cars. It’s not rocket science (it’s sort of no rocket science, you grok? Less money for military, more for sustainable transport…) The solution for Village Farms is parking permits, no permits for construction of private lots, no parking at Nugget overnight, and for existing housing there would ideally be some way to regulate repeated overnight parking in garages for vehicles registered elsewhere BUT if I want to visit my lover in Wildhorse every night, I still shouldn’t be forced to ride my bike there! So perhaps regulation is not possible for this issue….
    Wish that Alan Miller would respond: He’s actually one of the few paid transport experts in town. ement

    Reply
  29. Ron O

    “South of Market”
    Amusing, right-off-the-bat.
    Ron O: Some manufacturers of legally defined e-bikes are focusing more on torque then on top speed.
    I want “both”.
    Eventually some “connected vehicle” thing will come into play which may e.g. limit acceleration or even assist speeds for private bikes in certain area(s), . . .
    Exactly – damn government!
    “Most families” where have two vehicles? And why? It’s not genetic, mostly. I know gobs of people with families in some USA cities and many in Europe who don’t own cars.
    Unless you can “import” Europe into every city that surrounds Davis, it’s not difficult to figure out where they’re going to end up.
    But I’d question why the “pursuit of families” is a goal in the first place.

    Reply
  30. South of Davis

    Todd may know “gobs” of families without cars, but the number of families without a car in Davis rounds to 0% (these people don’t live in Davis):
    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-family-on-scooter-174421585.html?imageid=86E9F0E4-9D2A-43AE-B1E7-FE3AEC5A770E&p=613577&pn=1&searchId=47ba97783e6b2ac228ba1373a557612b&searchtype=0
    Has anyone else noticed the fleet of white electric scooters around town (without license plates) that seem to be making deliveries (but don’t seem to follow most traffic laws)?
    P.S. The new eBikes sure are getting fast:
    https://www.makeuseof.com/fastest-ebikes-for-sale/

    Reply
  31. Alan C. Miller

    TE say: “Wish that Alan Miller would respond”
    OK, I think you should be able to visit your lover in Wildhorse 😐
    But seriously, respond to WHAT ???!!! You’ve written essays here with about 34 subjects vaguely related, 14 terms or statements I can’t make heads or tails of, stated what “should be” though some are all but impossible, not explained your reasoning even when I knew what you were saying and in some cases are making a joke but I’m not always sure when.
    When on a subject you care about and want to make real change, the most important thing is to write for the clarity of your readers, explain your reasoning clearly, and stick to the central subject. You often see things others don’t and nail some core problems, but this often gets lost in the verbiage.
    I will gladly respond if you ask me clear, concise questions.

    Reply
  32. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    Alan Miller: Your question was about light rail.
    Months ago when visiting near the very sad Woodland Depot with its historical, nice and fairly dense neighborhoods to the west and northwest inclusive of county functions and a real main street…. the relatively under-populated areas to the east… the UP ROW used for a few services per day… “Village Farms”…. future faster mainline rail sevices… First St and Hutchinson out to West Village…
    What about the idea that the key – okay, a key – to sustainable development in and Davis is doing similar in Woodland? With some kind of tram train services from Woodland to West Village, with new housing all 1/4 mile or less from the corridor… and very little parking?
    A feeder with a cross platform transfer at Davis Depot? Complemented with lots of last mile solutions, a necessary re-routing of traffic from 1st and B and Richards at least part of the day? More student housing replacing the parking lots near Hutchinson in West Village?
    What’s the future of the UP ROW? Of California Northern services? Is there a way for the corridor to be shared? I know that years ago you were quite cynical about the stated reasons for rerouting the cargo trains…. and the concept for a active corridor for cycling here…
    I did make a inquiry with the Link 21 people about Woodland Depot and they said that there was little interest… not sure from whom.
    Are there any specific technical reasons why this couldn’t happen assuming that there is a lot of demand for it? It would seem to make sense in tandem with some kind of robust rail-based solution heading East on Covell… But only if there are not a lot of conveniently parked cars in garages at home….

    Reply
  33. Alan C. Miller

    TE, I had asked for concise question — this multiple questions, many of which are statements-in-questions. #sigh# I’ll do my best.
    Alan Miller: Your question was about light rail.
    My question? You said you wished I would respond, not that I’d asked a question.
    Months ago when visiting near the very sad Woodland Depot with its historical, nice and fairly dense neighborhoods to the west and northwest inclusive of county functions and a real main street….
    Wait, let me stop you right there — fairly dense? Because there are apartments miles west? I don’t know what standards you are using, but ‘dense’ can be measured, and I don’t think anything within walking distance of the Woodland depot could be considered ‘dense’. And in fact there are many open lots — and a friend has a small farm within the city limits less than a mile from the depot. And why are we talking about Woodland?
    the relatively under-populated areas to the east…
    Largely industrial.
    the UP ROW used for a few services per day…
    True
    “Village Farms”….
    Not in Woodland, not built, not voted on.
    future faster mainline rail sevices…
    Long after all reading this are dead.
    First St and Hutchinson out to West Village…
    I don’t know why you are naming these things.
    What about the idea that the key – okay, a key – to sustainable development in and Davis is doing similar in Woodland?
    That’s a clear & concise question? OK, here’s a clear and concise answer: WHAT ABOUT IT?
    With some kind of tram train services from Woodland to West Village, with new housing all 1/4 mile or less from the corridor… and very little parking?
    First, I have no idea what a ‘tram train’ is. Second, you’d need a new right-of-way to go to West Village — and why would that be the destination? Third, why would people in West Village give up their cars to take a non-existent form of transportation, a ‘tram train’, to Woodland? There is nothing special or dense about the places you’ve mentioned. There’s nothing special about Davis that would attract sparse federal dollars for transit to connect two destinations in small towns with a new ‘tram’ train system. Fourth, how could you give up parking when Woodland isn’t the only or even a likely destination for West Village or vice versa? People would still need cars.
    A feeder with a cross platform transfer at Davis Depot?
    Not a terrible idea, but we don’t even have a bus doing that today (I’m assuming you mean from Woodland), and a bus could simply be routed into the depot and doesn’t require it’s own right-of-way. This is something to contemplate in the year 2150 after Flannery Associates has turned East Solano County into Elk Grove, and Wooland-Davis looks more like Orange County. Right now there simply isn’t the population to justify attracting rare transit dollars for such an investment. Again, there is nothing special about Davis. The demographics are what they are.
    Complemented with lots of last mile solutions, a necessary re-routing of traffic from 1st and B and Richards at least part of the day?
    That isn’t actually a question, it’s like a half-sentence with a question mark. Simply stating the words ‘last mile solutions’ means nothing. They have a market, and that market has limits, and not all is green. Don’t forget Uber is a last mile solution, and by far the most used.
    As for ‘routing traffic from 1st and B and Richards’, why would you route traffic away, and how? The original Nishi project would have done this, but the idiots in town tried to paint that as making matters worse, when in fact it was a way to divert traffic out of downtown.
    More student housing replacing the parking lots near Hutchinson in West Village?
    Again, you’d have to have a way for all students to get everywhere they ever wanted to go, in a timely manner, and in all weather. That is a tall order. Much better if they had put in skyscrapers rather than later replacing parking lots with more low-rise.
    You can’t eliminate cars by eliminating the convenience to use cars. You actually have to have mass-societal infrastructure that supports movement without cars, and we don’t, and we won’t, not for centuries at least. That’s why I believe attacking this at the local level is futile, there’s only so many people will live a new lifestyle. Like one: Robb Davis. The rest are blow-hards who want everyone else to live like that, but not them.
    The actual solution is massive investment in inter-regional transit, i.e., for us, the Capitol Corridor to the Bay Area. Hourly trains, electrified, faster travel times, clock-face schedules, improved connections. Tens of billions of dollars.
    Once that is done, local buses can radiate out to all parts of town, and to nearby towns, such as Woodland. Density will occur naturally around rail stations due to demand. Contrast this to allowing tax incentives to developers for being near a bus stop, by law, despite the fact that few will use the bus service. That’s just a developer subsidy.
    Perhaps, someday, when population justifies, a rail shuttle can use the rail line to Woodland. We are talking a century out, easily. Even if we started today and had full funding, the Capitol Corridor improvements build-out is 20-30 years out. And we are NOT starting today, and we do NOT have the funding. Instead, we are piecemealing a slow expansion of I-80. Our focus is more of the same, despite the fact transportation is the single-greatest contributor to air degradation.
    What’s the future of the UP ROW?
    It remains the UP ROW
    Of California Northern services?
    Going strong.
    Is there a way for the corridor to be shared?
    To me, shared with a bike path, allowing for electric bikes and scooters, possibly in their own space, makes sense. Someone already made a detailed plan for this (I’ve seen it, but forgot his name). Certainly a rail shuttle is possible, but I don’t see it as being worthy of attracting funding anytime in this century with current population and density, and so many other unfunded needs elsewhere.
    I know that years ago you were quite cynical about the stated reasons for rerouting the cargo trains…. and the concept for an active corridor for cycling here…
    The so-called rail relocation is a real estate scam. As for sharing the corridor with a cycling path, as I said above, I am much in favor of such an investment, immediately.
    I did make a inquiry with the Link 21 people about Woodland Depot and they said that there was little interest… not sure from whom.
    Why would you contact Link 21 about the Woodland Depot, and what does the depot itself have to do with anything? Link21 is a massive planning project for bringing a new rail tunnel under the Bay between San Francisco and the East Bay, with connections to the Central Valley. Why would you contract them about the “Woodland Depot” ?
    Are there any specific technical reasons why this couldn’t happen assuming that there is a lot of demand for it?
    Do you mean rail service to Woodland? (This focus on the “depot” is puzzling to me. The focus on Woodland is puzzling to me). Technically, of course not. But that’s not the issue, the issue is value for money. And why would you assume there would be “a lot” of demand for such a service? This would require a huge amount of investment for a small market. Why would the market suddenly not be small and worthy of such an investment? To be cynical: next stop, Zamora!
    It would seem to make sense in tandem with some kind of robust rail-based solution heading East on Covell…
    I have no idea what you are talking about. From where to where? For what purpose? With what money? Why?
    But only if there are not a lot of conveniently parked cars in garages at home….
    That isn’t a question. Why would there not be cars parked at home? You aren’t going to eliminate cars. The problem isn’t cars parked. The problem isn’t eliminating cars. The solution is to have alternatives that are fast, frequent, and convenient. And that is nearly impossible to achieve with local transit, and the market will always be limited. Even if we somehow achieve doubling of bus usage — and note that bus usage nationwide is down since Covid-19 — then we will still have not put a dent in car usage. So why is that the focus?
    The reason: developer subsidies and incentives for building near a bus stop. And that is why American transit solutions and spending are largely developer subsidies. Also, people are so naive that they hear a developer is putting in a ‘transit plaza’ and they all think the developer is Mr. Greenjeans. Usually, a ‘transit plaza’ in a town like Davis reroutes a bus route, taking extra time for all the people on the bus passing through, which decreases ridership. This is greenwashing.
    That’s why we need a new paradigm: focus on massive investment in inter-regional rail. If there is an alternative to long car trips, many people will use it. Fast, frequent, electric. Good connections, which is what local transit will be — not for local shopping trips, but as a first segment in getting to the regional train station. Local transit will have a viable purpose in the paradigm of the regional rail.
    Instead, even Davis is set to support a piecemeal next-step in the slow expansion of I-80. With Flannery Associates turning massive square miles of open land in East Solano into Elk Grove, and South Yolo County (open land south on Mace) next, Davis, by being OK with I-80 expansion now, contributes to the expansion of freeway culture and more VMTs, one highway segment at a time.
    This is Backwards Thinking.

    Reply
  34. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    Alan C. Miller: Everything I wrote is connected transport- and development-stimulating wise with the mainline rail ideal you detail — the idea is to do both simultaneously.
    So many details… lots of easy to access and affordable carsharing will help with carfree or car-lite households….
    The area just to the east and a bit south from Woodland Depot is the Fairgrounds and the mostly abandoned sprawl-mall…… why not develop it all to some reasonable density?
    Again, the “light rail” headed east on Covell was proposed by what’s his name Keller in the Vanguard…. I agree that adding stops to existing bus routes is a bad idea and that e.g. Village Farms dedicated shuttles will be very expensive to run and if the developers have to provide them they will look for excuses to cut services… and yes, yes… elsewhere I’ve referred to “magic transit plazas”…
    A “tram train” is a rail vehicle that runs partly as a light rail vehicle on the street and partly as a typical regional rail vehicle. There are several examples in Germany… it is almost certainly a high floor vehicle, it can probably use supercapacitors or other charging systems… it would on the street in Woodland on Main St west of UP ROW and in Davis from the Depot down 1st St…
    It would be fed by short bus routes in Woodland etc., bikes, etc…. I see a huge problem with Davis Depot being served by tons of buses from all directions with 6 or 8 trains per hour… clockface, yes. All through Richards and G St etc. Yuck.
    OK, I am forever setting up myself for dismay, and not getting paid for it.

    Reply
  35. Ron O

    “The area just to the east and a bit south from Woodland Depot is the Fairgrounds and the mostly abandoned sprawl-mall…… why not develop it all to some reasonable density?”
    There are, or were plans to do so (regarding the mall). Don’t know what the status of this is. Not sure if the fairgrounds are also being considered.
    https://www.fishertowndesign.com/projects/project-pdfs/woodland-charrette-mall-retrofit.pdf
    But if you think about it, a primary reason that the mall is dying in the first place is because Woodland encouraged a new, car-centric mall on Road 102 (where CostCo is, today). Target “moved” from the old mall to the new one, as well.
    Turns out that folks don’t like lugging stuff from CostCo to Davis (or even within Woodland) on a bicycle. Though there actually is a bus stop in that mall, as well.
    Hence, the “CostCo Highway” between Davis and Woodland. The same highway that will become far more congested, if Covell Village II is approved.
    There’s already bus lines between Woodland and Davis. Not sure if there’s still an express bus line, but I do recall one.
    Bottom line is that most folks moving to the area (especially families) prefer cars, over public transit. (With the possible exception of employer-subsidized transit lines to/from work in Sacramento or at UCD.)
    Public transit is dying in areas that have plenty of it, including places like San Francisco. BART is in big trouble, financially.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/options-funding-bart-puzzle-transit-officials/#:~:text=From%202018%20to%202022%2C%20BART's,funding%20runs%20out%20in%202025.
    If I was running the state, I might suggest a brand-new, enormously-expensive high-speed train line that goes from one place to another within the state – as long as none of the locations is actually where folks need to go when commuting for work. (Sarcasm intended, regarding that effort.)
    I might also try to establish something like the TSA process for that new train system, to mimic the process that travelers have to go through at airports. (Rather than where security is actually needed, such as on Muni, AC Transit, or whatever public transit system that Sacramento has.) (Sarcasm intended, again.)
    In any case, newcomers to the area will overwhelmingly choose new sprawl, whenever and wherever that option is provided to them within the local region. And there’s plenty of nearby cities which have, and will continue to provide this. (2-3 cars per family, maybe more.) Davis already has a lot of this type of housing, and some apparently think it needs more. They have yet to provide a coherent reason for it, though it’s not difficult to “read between the lines” regarding their underlying interests (e.g., “sprawl for schools”).
    It will be interesting to see if the school system successfully uses the “gender controversy” to create support for itself (e.g., for the renewal of the DJUSD parcel tax). So far, this “strategy” (if you want to look at it cynically) seems to be working.
    The more I know about school systems, the more I see self-interest in action.
    The choice is that much easier and obvious, if the alternative is an expensive shoebox in Davis. Especially for families.
    Most of those arriving in the area are coming from the Bay Area, where it’s already dense, expensive, and is a general hassle to go about their lives. They’re not looking to duplicate that experience in the valley.
    But again, I don’t know why Davis (or any valley city) should purposefully seek to accommodate those who want to move FROM environmentally-superior areas (such as the Bay Area) in the first place.

    Reply
  36. South of Davis

    Todd: I know that the heavy construction unions (and the politicians they support) like “rail” since they were paid millions a mile to install the rail from the SF ballpark and about a BILLION a mile to build the subway to Chinatown in SF (when buses would have done the job for a LOT less). Why is it that you want “rail” when a bus (that I’m guessing would cost less than a “tram train”) can get people from Davis to Woodland (and be sold to another city if nobody wants to ride a bus from Davis to Woodland). As Alan has noted bus use is down since Covid and most (more than half) of the time I see a bus in Davis or up in Tahoe (where the buses are FREE to ride) the buses are empty except for the driver. My grandparents in SF never owned a car and took public transit every day, but a LOT less people today are interested in taking public transit at all (even when it is FREE). When I was younger I rode my bike almost every day and today I still ride about half the time when the weather in nice, but today I meet less and less people that have any interest in riding a bike (I was just telling a friend that I can’t think of the last time I saw a “pack of kids” on bikes like I saw every day when I was a kid riding bikes everywhere with my friends). We need to plan for the world we have not the world we want. It would be great if more people got around on bikes (especially the kids that look like they will soon be on Type II diabetes meds) but last time I was a Nugget Market I had one of three bikes locked in the bike area next to the building when there were 100+ cars in the parking lot in front of the building (and I didn’t see a single person waiting at the bus stop with a bag of groceries)…

    Reply
  37. Alan C. Miller

    TE,
    Alan C. Miller: Everything I wrote is connected transport- and development-stimulating wise with the mainline rail ideal you detail — the idea is to do both simultaneously.
    That’s actually three things. And if you don’t do the core regional rail that can move masses of people, the other two will do very little or negative in regard to VMTs. Unless you start shooting people for not taking a bus.
    So many details… lots of easy to access and affordable carsharing will help with carfree or car-lite households….
    Details of what? An idea that you have in your head that you haven’t clearly described to your audience? I have a vague idea what you are getting at, but you haven’t even clearly described how these ‘tram trains’ would connected with each other or what routes they would take or where stations would be – just some random-ish places like E. Covell, West Village, the Woodland Depot, the Woodland Mall. I can’t clearly comment on a plan that hasn’t being clearly described or mapped.
    .The area just to the east and a bit south from Woodland Depot is the Fairgrounds and the mostly abandoned sprawl-mall…… why not develop it all to some reasonable density?
    What do you mean ‘why not’ ? You know governments can’t create housing, only incentivize (and often de-incentivize). If there’s a way to make the maximum of money doing it, I’m sure someone will do it. But it may not be what you are thinking. And why would you pave the fairgrounds? Do you believe that Woodland needs housing so badly that all public open spaces should be abolished?
    Again, the “light rail” headed east on Covell was proposed by what’s his name Keller in the Vanguard….
    I believe that is his bus/bike route through the middle of all future developments north and east of Mace/Covell. That is a sound idea, as dense housing should cluster along such a route, and having a dedicated busway is the only hope to get and/or allow people to use the bus for some trips, if it goes somewhere they might go. I gave TK a few suggestions, some of which he incorporated. But in a town laid out as ours, VMT reductions are going to be minimal. Such a bus route should be at best looked at as a public service for those who can’t drive, or possibly as a feeder to Amtrak and/or UCD.
    I agree that adding stops to existing bus routes is a bad idea and that e.g. Village Farms dedicated shuttles will be very expensive to run and if the developers have to provide them they will look for excuses to cut services… and yes, yes… elsewhere I’ve referred to “magic transit plazas”…
    I don’t think most people know what you mean by that. I’m guessing you mean transit stations inside developments that magically attract riders or make a dent in VMTs, when really what they are is a greenwashing selling-point for developers to fool naive citizens who know little about the limitations of public transit, especially in a small market. But look at what great people we are, as ‘green’ developers Gag me with a spoon.
    A “tram train” is a rail vehicle that runs partly as a light rail vehicle on the street and partly as a typical regional rail vehicle. There are several examples in Germany… it is almost certainly a high floor vehicle, it can probably use supercapacitors or other charging systems…
    OK, I think I get what you are describing here, and in theory, and in Europe, that is a doable concept. You run as a mainline train between towns, then turn off the main and into a streetcar within the towns. A few problems: 1) The FRA crash standards for mainline trains, and those for streetcars, are radically different and not compatible. That is why you see no examples of what you describe in the US; 2) The markets are too small and too spread out and too not-dense to attract any dollars from the state or the feds. Densely populated urban markets will get rail dollars as there are massive numbers of urban routes that would attract far more riders than connecting towns like Woodland-Davis, with or without mysteriously routed rail lines to West Village or East Covell.
    it would on the street in Woodland on Main St west of UP ROW and in Davis from the Depot down 1st St…
    The routes make the most sense generally, if I’m extrapolating where such lines might go, but again, possible orgins/destinations are too spread out and density is not there. I would predict that if we came back in 100 years and the Capitol Corridor were fully built out and there were some dense blocks in each, we still wouldn’t see light rail in Woodland or Davis, maybe a rail shuttle to connect with the Capitol Corridor, maybe.
    It would be fed by short bus routes in Woodland etc., bikes, etc….
    Already Yolobus is going to on-demand van-shuttles, like subsidized Uber, rather than in-town short bus routes, so I really doubt that.
    I see a huge problem with Davis Depot being served by tons of buses from all directions with 6 or 8 trains per hour… clockface, yes.
    Even if trains are running half-hourly in each direction at the day’s peak, that’s only four trains per hour total, and much of the day will be hourly even in several decades in the future.. Buses can loop out and come back on fixed routes every hour to meet clock-face trains; that’s a basic tenant of quality transit planning, as perfected by the Swiss, Gremans and others.
    There isn’t enough Davis for there to be “tons” of buses, but H Street should be re-built in such a way that it can serve this need (one of the reasons I oppose the closing of G Street is it routes far too much traffic onto H Street that can’t handle the flow, much less additional modes, and if G Street remains closed that won’t be able to be rectified.
    All through Richards and G St etc. Yuck.
    I don’t believe there would be a problem with buses getting in and out if we plan for a busway on H Street onto 1st Street and onto campus to a depot by Shields, and then out to West Village. This won’t have light rail for centuries, but it is a logical bus route.
    OK, I am forever setting up myself for dismay, and not getting paid for it.
    I guess I should be thankful that I am paid for my dismay.

    Reply
  38. Alan C. Miller

    SOD say:
    We need to plan for the world we have not the world we want.
    So true. The demand curve where people actually choose to ride buses is staggering. I would hate to think of the price of gas that would bring this change about where a significant number of people would make the shift.
    It would be great if more people got around on bikes (especially the kids that look like they will soon be on Type II diabetes meds)
    Also sad, but true.
    but last time I was a Nugget Market I had one of three bikes locked in the bike area next to the building when there were 100+ cars in the parking lot in front of the building (and I didn’t see a single person waiting at the bus stop with a bag of groceries)…
    Yes, exactly. I’m a huge proponent of public transit — but I don’t have this weird obsession with buses, or any alternate transit, as some sort of VMT Savior. Rather, it should be a part of any decent society to have alternative transit as safe and frequent options, and for those that need it.
    But think about it, even if you doubled bus, bike and pedestrian mode share, you still would have 95 cars in that parking lot rather than 100. And mode share on those modes is going down, largely thanks to Uber and Lyft. So how you going to even double it, even though it needs to be up by two orders of magnitude to actually make a dent in VMTs.
    Do you really believe these greenie ‘Davis Can’ intellectuals will actually switch to taking a bus around town or over to Sac on a regular basis, even if service were doubled? Robb Davis, yes, the vast majority: no.

    Reply
  39. Tuvia ben Olam DBA Todd Edelman

    Alan (and others):
    I am curious:
    * How many in City Council, County Board, relevant City Commissions and relevant Staff have lived in quite dense places… carfree (after university) and/or cities with great public transport?
    Vehicle ownership or at least access often feels very necessary here – I am not arguing that. My point is that it can be feel very liberating, and direct experience with the lived-in things I mention is unique in stimulation of more than an abstract fulfilment.
    I lived for a total of 15 years in the first, second and 15th places on this list: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/world-best-cities-public-transit/index.html, and spent time on public transport in several visits nos. 4 and 10.
    This all informs my perspective. It’s important to note that Berlin, Prague and NYC all have significant challenges with automobile use and abuse. I recognize that it was a privilege to live in these places.

    No one is denying that motor vehicle ownership at ALL the proposed developments will be significant if allowed. Yes, regional travel very nearly-requires this, and as I see no plan for truly separated cycling routes to campus and Downtown, no clear place for a dedicated transitway, many many years before a significant railway buildout… I see nothing but huge damage to the City (and County corridors, e.g. CR-102, in terms of noise and other forms of traffic violence. This may be the “unavoidable” and that’s it, if this stuff is built. There is no honest way to dress it up as less (more?) than that.

    Exactly ME is the only one who seems to acknowledge that a freeway running through the lower third of the city is government-funded insanity. No one even acknowledges that the current state is awful, even when flowing well. No one will even hint at joining my idealistic illusion, even with a patronizing remark.

    The “tram-train” route from Woodland to Davis and UC Davis would have a few stops on Main St. > Woodland Depot > Re-developed Fairgrounds > Re-developed County Fair mall > Community Center > Woodland Research Park/25A > Village Farms > Cannery > 8th St > 3rd St/Depot > 1st and E/D > 1st and Old Davis Rd…..
    Central route: Hutchinson – Shields Library > Hutchinson – Silo > Hutchinson – Dairy Rd > Hutchinson – Sports Field (during events) > Veterinary School (one or two stops).
    South route: Old Davis Rd – “New” Solano Park/Arboretum > Old Davis Rd – Hyatt – Promenade (via elevators) – Mondavi.
    (This could be a loop by connecting Central and South)
    West route: Central route then > La Rue/ARC > through parking lot to north of Colleges at La Rue > new bridge across 113 > Tilia – loop through West Village…

    Reply
  40. David Kupfer

    Lifelong Community Activist and wise guy David Thompson brings some clarity to a rather muddled proposal…Davis needs low and moderate, efficiently built and maintained homes/apartments. Of course, developers just want to build million dollar mansions, for that is where the money is. If capitalism and money were the answer, it must have been a pretty ^&*%$ up question…seems to me…Good Luck Davis…was a lovely little town in the 80s to live…ah memories…

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply