Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis commission reviews short-range transit plan, weighs Unitrans route changes and data needs
Summary
At its Dec. 8 meeting the Davis Transportation Commission discussed the short-range transit plan existing-conditions review, Unitrans' $10 million operating budget and student-fee funding, possible route changes that could displace 5–7% of riders, and requests for more granular UC Davis origin-destination data.
The Davis Transportation Commission on Dec. 8 received the short-range transit plan existing-conditions review and spent the bulk of its meeting questioning staff and Unitrans representatives about ridership trends, routing proposals and data gaps.
Commissioners and staff focused on Unitrans, the campus-centered transit network. Jeff Flynn, who identified himself as general manager at Unitrans, told the commission, “our operating budget is $10,000,000 a year, and two thirds that's funded with high student fees, and the third is funded by the city.” That funding mix shaped discussion of options to expand service or pursue revenue changes.
Why it matters: Unitrans carries a large majority of UC Davis riders and the draft plan frames several trade-offs between on-time performance and direct access. Staff said one proposed change—routing the PQ line so it does not cross the I‑80 overpass—would leave a small share of riders (an estimated 5–7%) farther from a stop. That prompted commissioners to ask staff to consider temporary pilot stops and to return with additional alternatives before moving forward.
Staff updates and data requests: City staff announced a new active‑transportation/bike map and reported November counts at 5th Street at IJK; they also noted the draft environmental‑impact report for the related planning effort is online and under review. Commissioners repeatedly requested finer origin‑destination detail for UC Davis trips because the plan currently shows the campus as a single node. Several commissioners said more granular campus destination and origin data—while respecting privacy—would help prioritize investments where trips actually originate and end.
Active transportation and equity: Multiple commissioners urged the plan to treat active transportation (walking and bicycling) as a complementary strategy rather than only comparing transit to cars. Speakers pointed to student bike mode share on campus and recommended that the next iteration explicitly connect transit proposals with protected bike and pedestrian improvements.
Next steps: Staff said they will return with more alternatives on the PQ routing and other service‑change options, present subcommittee schedules (Safe Routes to School, speed humps), and prepare a project‑status briefing on major funded and partially funded transportation projects. No ordinance or formal policy change was adopted at the meeting.
Votes at a glance: The commission approved the evening's agenda and the consent calendar (minutes from the prior meeting) by voice vote; a motion to adjourn was carried at the end of the meeting.
The commission closed the meeting after confirming the task calendar and planned follow-ups for more detailed service proposals and data analysis.
