Alternative Transportation Corridor to become just a bike path
Excerpts from the Yolo Sun report called Davis-Woodland Bikeway Feasibility Update: Route Chosen, Practical & Policy Hurdles Remain:
Updated in large part as a result of the death of a Woodland bicyclist — riding upon the existing — on-street, Class II type of bikeway route previously adopted — the “Final” version of a 2001-originated Davis-Woodland Bikeway Feasibility Study (DWBFS) has now recommended a preferred (6.5 mile) intercity route and accomplished related feasibility analyses for potential implementation of a dedicated, Class I type of bikeway.
Class I bikeways are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic, by either open space or a barrier.
“Connection Travel Times” analyzed for three alternative routes, demonstrate (not surprisingly) that the optimum route orientation involves a diagonal, SE / NW path — “as a bird flies” — between J Street & Covell Boulevard on the Davis end and County Road 24A & Sixth Street at the Woodland terminus.
Coincidentally, this basic route is already the track of the California Northern Railroad, and the recommended bikeway route parallels this track for much of its own course (please see related details, below).
The alternative route paralleling Highway 113 would impact 33 parcels of land, but the preferred route would impact only 18 parcels.
Quite significantly — both staff and elected officials of Woodland and Yolo County favor eliminating the NEV component from the project, based on several considerations.
“Let’s get rid of the NEVs — now!” exclaimed Woodland City Manager Mark Deven, during the recent meeting of its Infrastructure Subcommittee — while, another staff member indicated that: “the county is strongly with removing [NEVs]” from this proposed bikeway plan.
One reason for not accommodating an NEV lane is its expense. A regular pedestrian – bikeway is estimated to cost about $9.5 million — with NEV capability adding $3.8 million to that price-tag.
Only about 145 electric-types of vehicles are presently registered in Yolo County, with most of these presumed to be NEVs. This contrasts with the City of Lincoln (a nearby hotbed of NEV culture) — with 600 registered NEVs and another 800 street-legal golf carts.
Read the complete report at YoloSun.wordpress.com.
Alternative Transportation Corridor Web page at YoloCounty.org.
Posts
8 comments:
This Mark Deven is a real piece of work. He said get rid of the NEV's without checking into the history of the alternative transportation corridor plan. This community could have the only electric car highway between to two cities in the nation. So we only have a few NEV's now its a opportunity to grow in future. Many Woodlanders work in Davis and as gas get higher they could use NEV's for transportation to work. But our City Manager is so close minded that he says just get rid of it. If he would looks past his nose he would find that there is grant money to build the electric car highway. Thanks Mr. City Manager for your agressive leadership
UCD employee
The story included the following, which I presume came from the Davis-Woodland Bikeway Feasibility Study (DWBFS) :
"Also, the price differential between NEVs and regular electric-powered motor-vehicles — capable of conventional speeds and versatility — is rapidly closing."
I disagree with this. There are no affordable all-electric vehicles in our immediate future. There is progress in bringing "conventional speed and versatility" to market, but go price one. They're all near $100K or otherwise unavailable. The Nissan Leaf - a combination electric/gas vehicle, unlike hybrids Prius and Civics (that are different technologies from each other) will be available for about $30K in late 2010. A similar Chevy Volt will cost more than that, available about the same time. NEVs cost just over $10K and are a special class of vehicle. They are exempt from registration fees for one thing... and they do go up to 35 mph despite the report.
Also from the article:
"NEVs may eventually become obsolete antiques rather than viable alternative transportation, implies this DWBFS assessment."
They will if government isn't proactive in allowing them to be a viable alternative vehicle. The position of staff is typical for anything innovative and economical.
Again... from the article:
"Woodland City staff recently expressed to its Traffic Safety Commission that — because of a variety of factors — NEV use is expected to remain flat or decline during the foreseeable future."
And again... a typical cow-town perspective on alternative transportation. As to the practicalities of path-sharing, I do see how the bicyclists surveyed would be hesitant to be on the same narrow road as an NEV. This should not be a deterrent to promote and accommodate NEVs, however. One plan that surfaced a few months back was to transform Road 99 into the corridor. I think that same idea could work for NEV use... a 35 mph speed limit on that road between Woodland and Davis. I also think there are roads in Woodland that are needlessly above 35 mph... like Gibson Road by Pioneer High School. That 45 mph speed limit is ridiculous, dangerous, and not necessary.
Howdy,
Bobby Harris here.
Relevant to vehicle cost: the basic issue is that - by the time this bikeway is constructed and made available (3 - 5 years, like 2013 or so) - this evolving price convergence of NEV / other electric vehicles will be accelerating.
The DWB Feasibility Study cites a report by UCD's Institute for Transportation Studies -- (referred to in article) indicating that such a intercity NEV route would - not - be a strong enough marketing point, to spur popular purchase and use of NEVs, over conventional electric vehicles.
Used NEVs now cost $3 - $5,000, but that limited type of vehicle access won't support a $4 million project.
Would persons spend $12,000 on an NEV -- when they could spend $20,000 for a fully equipped, conventional electric vehicle (in 4 years, 2013)?
Also, many - used - electric vehicles will also be on the market by that time.
Even the City of Lincoln, with over 1,000 registered NEVs, doesn't have an -- NEV Highway -- going anywhere.
In fact, it seems that the very notion of a -- "Highway" -- for "Neighborhood Electric Vehicles" is a stark contradiction in terms.
By the way, expanded on-street NEV-bike lanes (Class II) are used in Lincoln (and could be used in Yolo County, to some extent).
Also, there are no federal grants / funding that are specific to NEVs -- only for alternative transportation in general.
I don't believe that this decision is a matter of government refusing to be proactive by disallowing realistic, practical use of a viable, alternative transportation mode.
Review of the DWBFS survey results, noted in the Yolo Sun article, clearly displays that NEV use would likely not surge on this bikeway.
By comparison: only half of the projected cost of an NEV component would pay to connect this bikeway to eastern Woodland -- incentivizing bicycle use between there and Davis.
Bobby,
I still disagree with your economics on NEVs vs Electric Cars... NEVs could be viable alternatives if government would facilitate and promote their use.
“Let’s get rid of the NEVs — now!” clearly demonstrates local government's refusal to be proactive. That is shutting the door to alternative transportation with no emissions - with or without a dedicated road.
NEVs don't require registration fees and they will continue to be more affordable than a "conventional-style" electric car. The state has promoted their use, why not cities and counties?
Also, in your false economics you are not considering supply and demand. I see a gap of $20-30K between cars and NEVs as more of the norm. That's a lot of money.
There will be few used electric cars available by 2013.
The economics of expense versus use is more compelling... and now that the difference is shown between bike-ready and NEV/Bike ready (almost $4 million), it does make sense to scrap the NEV-compatible road. That is why I brought up using Road 99 again. That could be a low cost and viable "highway" for NEVs. Yes... a "highway for vehicles going 35 mph.
Highway isn't contradictory... it implies a dedicated road for free-flowing traffic. A highway could be for NEVs, bikes, tricycles, horse carriages, whatever. Replace the word "highway" with "road" or "corridor," if you wish, but the idea remains the same... promoting alternative transportation. That was a weak point in support of scrapping NEV entirely.
Now... using your "support" logic. Is $9.5 million worth it to "support" the number of bicyclists using the new bikeway?
Lincoln is an example of how NEVs can be popular. And take a look at Avalon on Catalina. NEVs won't have a chance to be popular here with an attitude of “Let’s get rid of the NEVs — now!”
Dino (Bobby here again),
NEVs are viable now, it's simply a matter of how to best facilitate their increased use -- but the marketing feasibility indicates that NEVs using this bikeway just isn't a robust, durable incentive.
NEVs often involve emissions at some level of the process of creating the -- electricity -- they use.
Bicycles, by contrast, are entirely free of environmentally deleterious emissions. Bicycling is also healthier than riding in NEVs.
Both of these reasons support a strong, independent focus on bicycling.
Combining - all - of the various aspects of this situation, including great expense, and the relative vagueness of NEV uses, its inclusion in this particular project doesn't seem justified.
Like you suggest, Dino -- why not simply set a 35 mph speed limit on the Road 99 route between Woodland and Davis -- and loudly post it as an -- alternative-transport route for bikes and NEVs -- as well as regular traffic (at that speed)?
That move would immediately make -- much safer -- the existing alternative transporation route between these communities.
Of course this bikeway is worth the money -- but it should be properly conceived.
Running a bikeway branch over to Spring Lake for another $2 million is also worth it, while the $3.8 million price tag for NEV speculations is not.
As you point out, NEV use can be promoted in better ways.
Let's get these Road 99 (existing) bike-NEV-way improvements before the B of S.
You call Matt or I will.
Bobby,
Like I said, the compelling argument of the extra $4 million and the hesitation of bicyclists to share the corridor are good reasons to change the plan to a bike path only.
I'd like them to sharpen their pencils on the $9.5 million, though.
Humans have emissions. Electric vehicles are commonly called zero emitters. Yes.. there is the problem with battery disposal, too.
Regardless if there is a special road for NEVs, the benefits of NEVs for any city are:
1. No "tail pipe" emissions
2. Uses less energy overall than gas vehicles
3. Light weight for road use and maintenance
4. They are affordable (probably will be half the price of "conventional" electric vehicles in the marketplace)
5. Exempt status in CA - no registration fees
6. Economical starter car for young drivers
7. Good entry vehicle for new borrowers
8. Reduced overall noise in urban setting
9. Reduced parking needs
10. Low operating and maintenance costs
11. Could be good PR for a city
12. Government fleets would save taxpayers
There are currently many styles available. The marketing benefits for a city accommodating NEVs are tremendous - lowering all speed limits to 35 mph (which would also be safer... safer and greener is good PR). The marketing potential for the industry is also exciting... I can envision owners customizing their little cruisers with interchangeable "skins" - like cell phone covers.
Recently I did a test drive from the edge of Woodland to the edge of Davis on Road 99... a total of six miles. Going 35 mph (with the stop signs) it took 12 minutes to go from Point A to Point B. The exact route going 55 mph took 8 minutes. Reducing the speed limit 20 mph only increases a trip by 4 minutes. The marketing potential for the county and the two cities as the first NEV "highway," or whatever you want to call it, is tremendous. Produce stands along the way could use that in their marketing. There could be sponsored signage, etc., etc.
As a comparison, traveling across Woodland on Main Street from the Heidrick Center to Raleys takes about 11 minutes... in an NEV or conventional vehicle. So it takes about the same amount of time to get to Davis as it does to get across Woodland at 35 mph.
I just think the potential and uses of the NEV should not be excused so flippantly.
Howdy Dino,
It's Bobby again.
That's a great list of NEV values and promotional notions.
Let's contact Matt and request that he push this proposal on to the BoS agenda. He would likely view it as a political benefit for the upcoming election campaign, and that's probably the case with other members.
It's politically attractive because it represents immediately getting something significant and novel done in the public interest.
Of course, some folks are going to insist that the status quo is the only viable reality, for whatever reasons.
This is a ripe occasion for busting out some visionary progress on an important and practical topic.
Enhancing safety and usability of our -- existing -- alternative transport corridor clearly is a public policy imperative.
Several respondents to the DWBFS survey expressed -- great anxiety -- about traveling by bicycle on this existing route, as well as about bicycling within Woodland in general.
* Current public use of this semi-designated corridor is certainly being unreasonbly inhibited. *
If all three jurisdictions were so motivated by the 2008 bicycling fatality on this route, to create a "final" update of the DWBFS and an eventual dedicated (Class I) bikeway -- why not propose that they be motivated to install an immediate public-safety resolution -- in the form of such an expanded (+NEV) designation of this route, combined with lowering its speed limit to 30 mph or so.
I think Deven was tightly focused on next month's deadline for application for federal funds, in context of his remark, and not necessarily being flippant.
His style may sometimes obscure appreciation of aspects of substance.
Unless the jurisdictions agree on such details, an application may be problematic -- and progress on this multi-layered project could be delayed for another six months or more.
* I believe that Deven would likely support this notion of expanding and enhancing the existing (Class II) bikeway. *
Let's find out.
Not including the NEV on the bike path isn't such a bad thing especially if some other route is available (i.e. 99 with a 35 mph speed limit). I don't think that Mark Deven was saying get rid of all NEVs as is implied by Anonymous UCD employee above but only to take the NEV off the table when considering access to the bike path. Generally the NEV is designed to mimic a conventional vehicle except in top speed. NEVs are much like the Smart car except with lower power capabilites. It is a significant stretch to include those types of vehicles on a bike path and it does require some separation. Why not just put them on a conventional road with a lower speed limit as that is what they are designed for? As a bike commuter and one who researches electric vehicles (not NEVs), I can see things from both sides of this argument.
I think it is also important to note that Willie Lopez (the bicycle commuter that was killed two years ago refered to above) was killed in a section of bike lane north of Road 27. Even though no one says anything about it now the sorry maintenance of the bike lane did have a factor in the accident. I know this because I commute on that same section and I even rolled up on the accident just a few minutes after it occurred. At that time and in that section of road you were forced nearer to the road by gravel and tree overgrowth. The county did trim back the trees and sweep up the road right after the accident but perhaps only 2-3 times since then. I'd love to see/write a post on the current condition of the bike lanes as we now have a recently completed bike lane that goes between Woodland and Davis. Anyone with a camera can just walk 50 steps out of Woodland on Road 99 (West st) and document how much the county cares about its bike lanes. Even with the recent restriping of the road they just painted over piled up mud weeds etc but I guess that is good enough for government work. Why in tarnation do we have a bike lane if we can't keep it swept up and free of thorn bushes? I certainly can't use it so I am out in the traffic lanes again and again. The current situation especially between Woodland and Road 27 along Road 99 is absolutely deplorable on both sides. A bike lane is supposed to be a 4 ft wide path (minimum) and kept clear of debris. Sure build a bike path but for crying out loud maintain the bike lanes we have first. Is running a sweeper up and down the road once a month and buying some Round-Up too much to ask?
PAUL
Post a Comment