SacRT Safe Routes to Transit

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacRT Safe Routes to Transit (SRTT) Plan held its first workshop on February 24 in Rancho Cordova. I attended the Rancho Cordova workshop, not because I live in that area, but because it was the only one that worked for my schedule. There is a virtual workshop on March 4, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM (registration), and three in-person workshops on March 5, 10, and 11.

I was the only member of the public at the workshop in Rancho Cordova. That is sad.

The workshop had some display boards, two showing bus and light rail stops in two areas, captured below.

What the workshop, and the program, was soliciting was input on specific stops. What was not solicited was policy ideas, but I provided them anyway.

The most important policy for SacRT to implement is that all bus stops located on arterial roadways (which is most though not all bus routes) must have safe crossings of the roadway located very near the stop. Stops away from safe crossings encourage riders to cross mid-block (which is not illegal, but is not safe), or require them to walk distances to a safe crossing. I suggest that every bus stop be evaluated, and changes made. Either a safe crossing would be provided, or the bus stop removed. There are many locations where no safe crossing exists anywhere close to the stop. Implementation of safe crossings would require cooperation between SacRT and the local government (cities and county). There should be a deadline for identifying a solution, and implementing the solution. I’d suggest two years, and five years.

Though not common in the cities, there are legacy bus stops in the county that do not have sidewalk access, at all. Those stops must either be provided with new sidewalks, or be removed. Again, there should be a deadline. I’d suggest five years.

I asked if SacRT had talked to riders on the bus to gather information for this project. The answer was no. Apparently this was done in the past, but not recently, and not specifically about this issue. Advocacy organizations have surveyed bus riders on the bus, but not on this specific issue.

The two light rail stations about which I have safety concerns are Swanson and Watt/I-80 West. Not because of access, but because they are so seldom used that a rider might well be the only transit user there at the time. That doesn’t feel safe. There is safety in numbers! I question whether these two stations should be kept open.

Bus stop amenities are critical for encouraging people to ride, but are not necessarily safety issues. Every stop should have a place to sit. Most stops should have a shelter and trash can. Some stops should have bike racks and live arrival displays. Many stops do not have enough space for a a wheelchair user to wait safely for ramp deployment. This must be fixed. Placing amenities often requires a bus stop pad wider than the sidewalk (sidewalks throughout the county are often narrower than desired). Sometimes the pad will fit within the public right-of-way, but often it requires either purchase or an easement on private property. The government agency should be responsible for the arrangements, and placing the concrete pad, not SacRT. SacRT would then place amenities.

H Street Bikeway: 10th St alternative

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

The 30% design for the 10th Street connection to the H Street Bikeway is shown below (these were also in the overview post H Street Bikeway: overview). The overall width of the roadway is 105.5 feet, and the ‘FOC face of curb’ width is 50 feet. The street narrows to 34 feet at the curb extensions at I Street and H Street.

H St Bikeway 10th St section, proposed
H St Bikeway 10th St section, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
H St Bikeway 10th St section proposed
H St Bikeway, 10th St section, proposed, 105.5 feet (from SacATC staff report)

I have created a StreetMix cross-section duplicating the design cross-section so that it can be compared to an alternative recommendation.

H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, proposed
H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, proposed (StreetMix created by Dan Allison)

The design proposes a 7 foot bike lane northbound, with a 3 foot stripped buffer, and a parking lane to the right against the curb. Despite the cross-section showing a vertical delineator in the buffer, this is not possible with a parking lane to the right of the bike lane. The bike lane continues the separated, mostly parking-protected, bikeway from the south, which is a good thing. But a buffered bike lane is less safe than a separated bike lane, so detracts from the safety and low-stress goals of the project. The design encourages drivers, whether parking or drop-off/pick-up, to cross the bike lane, a poor practice.

Instead, the design should create a parking-protected separated bikeway. This reduces the utility for drop-off/pick-up, but an larger area could be set aside in the parking lane for this purpose, and the conflict zone crossing the bikeway can be clearly marked. Bikeways that swing into the curb past curb extension, and out again past curb extension, feel awkward for bicyclists, but they have been installed in several locations along the separated bikeway network, and don’t seem to engender safety issues.

The design also proposes sharrows within a southbound general purpose lane. You will have to look closely at the image to see the sharrows, but there are there. They are placed far to the right, in the door zone. This is a very poor design. New sharrows should not be installed, as they don’t decrease crash risk over unmarked routes. If they were there, they should be placed in the exact middle of the travel lane, and supplemented by ‘bicycles allowed use of full lane’ signing (MUTCD R9-20). to make is clear that drivers should not be passing bicyclists in this block. It is particularly likely that drivers will squeeze out bicyclists against the curb extension at I Street. An alternative is to stripe a narrow 5 foot bike lane, without buffer or protection, marked with green. Not ideal, but better than sharrows.

The design retains existing parking. Though it is not clear that removing parking would allow a better design, this should always be a consideration. There is ample and never-full parking in the city garage on the south side of I Street between 11th and 10th Streets. The curb extensions at I Street and H Street are critical features for the safety of walkers, but they do constrain design in this block.

My suggested design is below.

H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, alternative design
H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, alternative design (StreetMix created by Dan Allison)

I do not have the time it would take to create an image of the street with the new design, but I think the cross-section will communicate clearly enough.

What is different? A southbound traditional bike lane (Class II) has been added. Both general purpose lanes have been reduced to 10 feet. There is no reason for over-wide lanes in this section. No buses, no delivery. The east side parking lane, an over-generous 9 feet, has been reduced to 7.5 feet. And the parking-protected separated bikeway is up against the curb, still with a 3 foot buffer from parked cars.

H Street Bikeway: a glaring gap

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

The H Street Bikeway project extends from 5th Street to 10th Street along H Street, and along 10th Street from I Street to H Street. It is intended to improve transit connectivity by double-tracking two blocks of light rail between 5th Street and 7th Street, and to improve bicycle access by providing a two-way separated bikeway (cycle-track) on H Street, which links to bikeways or bike lanes on 9th Street (southbound) and 10th Street (northbound). The project provides a reasonable solution, though it could be improved in a number of details (see H Street Bikeway: overview).

A map in the SacATC presentation shows the bikeway network in the central city, highlighting the gap on 10th Street from I Street to H Street.

map of Preferred Bicycle Network, showing gap on 10th St between I St and H St
Preferred Bicycle Network, showing gap on 10th St between I St and H St (from SacATC presentation)

It does not highlight the glaring gap on I Street between 12th Street and 10th Street. The separated, parking-protected bikeway on I Street, that starts at 21st Street, ends at 12th Street (it is just a bike lane in front of the fire department just west of 13th Street, but resumes further west).

For a bicyclist wanting to access the proposed two-way separated bikeway on H Street, they must use regular Class II (paint only) bike lanes from 12th Street to 10th Street, then proceed north one block in a buffered bike lane to H Street. I Street between 12th Street and 10th Street is three general purpose lanes. As it typical of any three-lane one-way street, motor vehicle speeds are well above the posted speed limit of 25 mph, except when congested. By the way, it is not posted at all in this section, though the change from two lanes to three lanes at 12th Street would make posting logical if not imperative.

There are other gaps, including 9th Street south of Q Street, and L Street and N Street. The map refers to a L & N Street Bikeways Project, but neither the planning or engineering sections of Public Works seem to have a webpage on that project. Strangely, the streets adjacent to Capitol Park are shown as Class II, paint only bike lanes, though these two sections without mid-block driveways are the most logical place for separated bikeways in the entire city.

The map from the H Street Bikeway project presentation at SacATC was adapted from an old Grid 3.0 map (2016), below.

map of central city preferred bicycle network
Grid 3.0 map of central city preferred bicycle network

A more up-to-date map, with legend, is in the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan, page 80, ‘Figure 30 – Recommendations for People Biking in Central West Sacramento’, excerpted below. This map shows a separated bikeway (purple) continuing from 21st Street to 9th Street.

H Street Bikeway: intersections and bicycle signals

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

In designing a safe and welcoming two-way bikeway (cycletrack), design of intersections is critical. This post highlights the intersection. Both the staff report and presentation diagrams split the roadway at the intersections, obscuring the intersections themselves. The diagrams below show the intersections, and not the blocks in between the intersections. The diagrams are from the presentation, which offer more details about the intersections than the staff report. The images are rough because I glued together two parts which were not the same pixel resolution, but they provide a good idea of the intersections.

Key points:

  • bicycle signal faces are required at every intersection from 5th Street to 9th Street, but are indicated only at 5th Street and 6th Street
  • protecting bicyclists is particular critical at 7th Street and 9th Street to guard against right turning drivers heading southbound onto these one-way streets

5th Street: This intersection has a bicycle signal face for the two-way bikeway. The transition from the bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station looks awkward, and will be until the station itself is revised, which is also part of the TIRCP grant project.

image of H St Bikeway, 5th St intersection, proposed
H St Bikeway, 5th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)

6th Street: This intersection has a bicycle signal face for the two-way bikeway.

image of H St Bikeway, 6th St intersection, proposed
H St Bikeway, 6th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)

7th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. It is particularly required here to protect bicyclist against drivers turning right onto 7th Street. No turn on red signing would not protect bicyclists on the two-way bikeway. 7th Street is one-way southbound south of H Street, and two-way north of H Street.

image of H St Bikeway, 7th St intersection, proposed
H St Bikeway, 7th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)

8th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. 8th Street is one-way northbound.

image of H St Bikeway, 8th St intersection, proposed
H St Bikeway, 8th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)

9th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. It is particularly required here to protect bicyclist against drivers turning right onto 9th Street. No turn on red signing would not protect bicyclists on the two-way bikeway. 9th Street is one-way southbound to the south of H Street, but two-way to the north of H Street.

image of H St Bikeway, 9th St intersection, proposed
H St Bikeway, 9th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)

H Street Bikeway: driveway speed bumps

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

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.

photo of speed bumps across driveway on Battery St bikeway
speed bumps across driveway on Battery St two-way bikeway, San Francisco

someone died here, close the intersection

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

Read More »

so many projects, so little time

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

You may have noticed a flurry of posts yesterday and recently about ongoing planning projects for the City of Sacramento,

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.

Read more: so many projects, so little time

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.

Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP)

Dan Allison1 Comment

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.

map of Stockton Blvd Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP)