The H Street Bikeway design has 6 driveways crossing it, 2 on 5th Street to 6th Street, 3 on 6th Street to 7th Street, 1 on 7th Street to 8th Street, and none on 8th Street to 10th Street. Though none of these driveways are heavily used, all are potential conflict points for the bikeway. The 30% design diagrams do not detail how these driveways crossing the separated bikeway will be handled. It is imperative that motor vehicles using the bikeway are moving slowly enough that drivers will see and yield to bicyclists, and bicyclists have time to avoid collisions with drivers who do not yield.
San Francisco has a two-way separated bikeway (cycletrack) on Battery Street in the financial district. Each driveway has speed control devices to ensure that drivers are moving slowly entering and exiting the driveways. The photo below shows one installation, between Pine Street and Bush Street. As a frequent user of this bikeway, I can attest that they are a critical safety feature.
A note about speed bumps. Speed bumps are illegal across roadways in the US. They are most often seen in parking lots, where they are still legal. This use across driveways, and not streets, is legal. The traffic calming devices that are legal across roadways are speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables.
speed bumps across driveway on Battery St two-way bikeway, San Francisco
When a traffic crash results in a fatality, society mostly shrugs and moves on. Until Ariane Lange started writing in the SacBee about the victims of traffic, there wasn’t even a shrug. Sometimes all the evidence of someone dying is some small car parts pushed to the side, and maybe a small oil slick, easily ignored. There is nothing to say someone died here. The people who died might be drivers, passengers, walkers, bicyclists. Real people whose lives were cut short. It is likely for two reasons: roadway design that encourages speeding and reckless driver behavior, and human mistakes.
Rather than shrugging and moving on, we need to take notice. I think the best way is to close the intersection where the fatality occurred, and yes, it is quite often though not always, intersections. They are the locations with the most complex movement of motor vehicles, particularly turning movements, and walkers and bicyclists. The intersection should be closed until some action is taken to make the intersection safer.
Walkers: If the victim was a person walking, the easiest and quickest change is to implement a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) – see tag: LPI – or to lengthen the interval of the pedestrian crossing. This could be done tomorrow. A exclusive pedestrian phase can be implemented. Other changes take some time, but not a lot. Temporary curb extensions (paint and posts), temporary modal filters or traffic diverters (paint and posts), temporary traffic circles (paint and posts), closing slip lanes (paint and posts).
Bicyclists: The changes for bicyclist fatalities are more dependent on the context, but a quick fix would be to close slip lanes (paint and posts) and dedicated right hand turn lanes where they terminate bike lanes (paint and posts).
For crashes between two motor vehicles that kill drivers or passengers, it is again contextual, but common fixes would be to lengthen the clearance or ‘all-red’ interval. Egregious drivers will of course over time change their behavior to run red lights even later than they already do, but the timing change will make a difference until more significant changes can occur. Red light running is epidemic in the Sacramento region, and solutions will require a cultural change and rigorous automated enforcement.
How long should it be closed? Until something changes that makes the intersection safer. It need not be the fixes that will occur over time, but something must happen. That something could take as little as a few hours. The point is not to make a major delay in normal traffic flow, but to take notice, to witness the death and the unsafe nature of the roadways we have designed.
Changeable message signs should announce ‘someone died here from traffic violence’ to inform people about why the intersection is closed. The first sign below has the highest impact. The second sign is more politically palatable.
And there are several more in the planning or development stages. The city has a list at Transportation Planning: Current Efforts, There is also a map, Public Works Transportation Projects that shows the number of projects and status. Selecting for ‘planning’ shows Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan, Truxel Road Bridge Over American River, Norwood Ave Complete Streets Plan, Arden Way and Auburn Boulevard Vision Zero and Mobility Plan, Reconnecting Old North Sacramento, and Howe Ave Transportation Vision Zero Plan, which is mostly planned and about to go to council. You can also select for preliminary engineering, final design, in construction, and construction complete.
This is just within the City of Sacramento. Widening out, there are projects in each of the cities within the county, and Sacramento County itself. Widening our even further, there are projects and transportation policy development in the region, and for the region, under SACOG, and the other five counties within SACOG.
There are more projects and policies than any one person, or even an advocacy organization, can keep up with. Many of these projects depend on funding from the regional, state, or federal government to be implemented, and so many will sit on the shelf. Many of the policies will remain theoretical because there is not the political will to overcome the inertia of government and dedication of staff to doing things the way they have always been done. But sometimes writing about a project or policy does lead to positive change.
For me, I will focus on only a few of these, and quite possibly never write again on most of them. My current focus is Vision Zero Action Plan Update, H Street Bikeway, and Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP).
So why do I bring this up? I’d like to plant the seed of interest. If one of these projects, or one of the many others, piques your interest because it is in your neighborhood, or along your route of travel, or aligns with something you are passionate about, I’m inviting you to research and write about it, here. Getting Around Sacramento is the only regular local source of information about what is going on with transportation. I don’t wish to claim to much, but it is essentially Streetsblog Sacramento. If writing for this blog appeals to you, please get in touch – allisondan52@icloud.com. We can of course talk directly, but you will need to ask for my phone number, or arrange coffee/tea. What one project appeals to you? What, in general, do you want to say about it? You need not be familiar with WordPress, which is the host for this blog, as you could write directly or I can post your writing.
And yet another City of Sacramento planning effort, the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project. This is a Vision Zero project. Two segments are on the Vision Zero High Injury Network Top 5, Broadway and Stockton (Broadway between Martin Luther King Blvd and Stockton Blvd, and Stockton Blvd between Broadway and 13th Street), and Stockton Blvd South (Stockton between 65th Street and 37th Avenue). However, the project includes the entire route of SacRT 51, from downtown, along 8th and 9th Streets, Broadway, and Stockton as far as Florin Road. It is also a transit project, to enhance bus service along the Stockton part of Route 51, in particular.
Stockton has long been a focus for the city, and county, with many plans developed but none implemented. The current effort is a revision of those efforts to emphasize a potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along Stockton Blvd, and perhaps some enhancements to the other sections.
A community workshop was held this week at the Southgate Library, with city staff, consultants, and county staff present. Some issues that came up during the workshop include:
ridership on bus 51 drops off sharply south of Fruitridge Road, so investment should be focused on the section of Stockton between Broadway and Fruitridge; the nature of the neighborhoods north and south of Fruitridge are quite different, with south being significantly more car-dominated, and so less likely to generate ridership
sloped driveway ramps, common along Stockton, must be repaired so that they are compliant with PROWAG; provision of sidewalk buffers which contain the sloped driveways are the optimal solution
earlier outreach for Stockton, and every project the city has planned, surfaced a strong community desire for more street trees; healthy street trees need wide sidewalk buffers (the city calls them planting strips) of 8 feet; tiny sidewalk buffers lead to unhealthy trees and root heaves of the sidewalks
additional housing going in right now on Stockton, particularly around 8th to 10th Avenues, will generate a lot of walking, and the sidewalks there need to be improved and widened, not in the future, but now
several of the design concepts show a center turn lane throughout the project; in most sections, these are a waste of valuable roadway right-of-way; instead, left turn pockets should be provided where clearly needed
businesses have concerns about unhoused people using bus shelters and shelter, and crossing Stockton at random places
though rail is not being proposed for Stockton, the BRT design should not preclude rail being added at a later time as adjacent density and high ridership develop to justify an investment in rail
The project is also considering changing SacRT Route 51 so that it runs on Stockton from Broadway to Alhambra, and thence on surface streets to downtown. This section of Stockton has a narrower right-of-way, but it also hosts UC Davis Medical Center which could be a major generator of ridership for the bus. The existing Broadway Complete Streets project, and the additional segments from 24th Street to Stockton, have designs with a single general purpose lane in each direction and a center turn lane, which is not a good setting for BRT. The map below shows this option. If SacRT Route 51 was re-routed, there would need to be additional bus service along Broadway, since it is a high transit use corridor.
City and county staff, and consultants, seem to be supportive of a transformed Stockton Blvd, which will effectively serve transit riders, bicyclists, and walkers (and rollers). But there is likely to be pushback from the car-centric people who drive through on their way somewhere else, and who feel that time saving is more important than safety. It will take concerted effort to ensure a strong project.
Yet another City of Sacramento planning project, Reconnecting Old North Sacramento. This one is in early stages, no outreach or survey yet, but there is an email signup.
This is not a Vision Zero project, rather a project to addressed past neglect of this community.
A community workshop will be held March 11, details on the webpage, including an optional Eventbrite registration. There will also be a survey and pop-up workshops. You can also sign up for email updates.
These two roadway segments are on the city’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, so attention is appropriate.
A community workshop will be held March 4. See the webpage for details. There is an Eventbrite registration link, though you do not need to register to attend.
You can also sign up for email updates.
Fruitridge is on the city’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, so attention is appropriate.
The City of Sacramento’s Vision Zero Action Plan Update process has produced a Draft Actions chart. Item 9 in the high priority list is:
“Update City Traffic Signal Operations Manual (TSOM) to reflect complete streets and designs reflective of reducing exposure, likelihood, and severity. Include application of Leading Pedestrian Intervals, No Right Turn on Red, Protected Left-Turn Phasing, Rest on Red, and other similar strategies.”
Sounds great. The problem is, the TSOM apparently does not exist. I did a PRA (Public Records Act) request with the city for the existing document. The city first referred me to the Traffic Signal Operations and Standards webpage. That page contains links to short documents that might or might not be part of the manual, but the manual does not exist on that page.
So I submitted another PRA, stating that the document I wanted is not on that page, and again requested it. The city’s response was that the document does not exist.
I suspect the document does exist, but the city is unwilling to admit it. But it is also possible that the city has been managing signals based on whim, not on documented policy and guidelines. A lot of the signal work the city does, including new signals, tends to support the second explanation.
It might be challenging to update something that doesn’t exist (snark).
Below is a graphic from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan (Chapter 8 Mobility Element, page 8-9). As a transportation advocate, I obviously have a bias, but I think this is the most important graphic, and the most important message in the entire general plan.
User Prioritization from City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
This is in complete contrast to the transportation system we have built. Below is the transportation system we have. One could argue endlessly about how this varies with parts of the city, and whether active transportation should be lumped together, but the graphic communicates the problem.
I follow the city’s transportation projects, some in great detail, others only superficially. There are far too many for one person to cover, or even a group of people.
What I see in these projects is a very gradual shift from what we have to what we want. We might reduce general purpose (car) lanes, in number or width, but not always. We might add bicycle facilities. We might, occasionally, improve sidewalks for people walking and rolling (but not if we can get away with making property owners do it). We might make it easier for transit. Though the central city, and some neighborhoods outside the central city, have a reasonable tree canopy, north and south Sacramento are largely lacking a tree canopy, and every transportation project neglects solving this issue. We don’t plan in trees from the beginning, saying we’ll get to them later in the process, but at the end, they are usually missing.
We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in making things better for drivers and motor vehicles, and very, very little on anything else. It is time to almost completely reverse that, so spend nothing on drivers and motor vehicles, and almost everything on transit, active transportation, and trees.
Cross-sections
Another way of exhibiting this is street cross-sections. These are from StreetMix (https://streetmix.net/), for an 80 foot right-of-way. Neither is meant to represent an actual street, but rather illustrative of the way in which we can allocate street space to different uses.
In the ‘what we have’ cross-section, motor vehicles are dominant. Sidewalks are narrow, trees are present but in few numbers, and probably not healthy because they have been squeezed into small spaces, bicycle facilities are not present or are of low quality, ample space is allocated to cars in general purpose lanes, and left turn lanes and right turn lanes. Ample parking is provided, whether needed or not. I have intentionally picked low density and low productivity uses to line this roadway, parking lots and single story buildings, though most often there is a parking lot before you even get to the building. StreetMix only offers a few options for each element, and what is shown is what is available.
In the ‘what we want’ cross-section, private motor vehicles are strictly limited. There is parking, but not ample parking. Transit, where is makes sense to have it, operates in its own right of way. Since the general purpose lane is one-way, a two-way bikeway (cycle track) is provided so that bicyclists have more freedom of movement than drivers. Sidewalks are ample, 8 foot on average. Sidewalk buffers are ample, 8 feet on average, so that trees have space to grow and thrive. The buffers are not just for trees, though, they can host dining and bike racks and street furniture. Reflecting the people-centered nature of this street, there are higher density uses of housing and business, and the buildings come to the sidewalk rather than being set back. The city is not proposing ‘what we want’ anywhere.
This street is far, far safer than multi-lane streets. By reducing the amount of space devoted to motor vehicle through traffic, space is freed up for people, people walking, people bicycling, people eating and socializing, and people just hanging out. It is quiet. It is friendly. It not only feels safe, but feels welcoming. This reflects my axiom that we should design streets from the outside in, not from the inside out (street design from the outside in). Outside in preferences walkers and trees, inside out preferences drivers and motor vehicles.
Getting Around Sacramento 