SacRT ambassador escalation, family hostility

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This morning I rode SacRT Gold Line light rail from 16th Street to Sunrise. A SacRT Transit Ambassador (see Safety and Security page for info on the program) escalated a minor issue into a major issue, for no good reason. A woman boarded with a baby in stroller. The stroller was small, and the train car mostly empty, about eight people on board. The woman and stroller were not causing any safety problem for anyone. The woman and the stroller were not blocking an aisle, a doorway, or a handicapped area (see SacRT regulations below).

The ambassador insisted that the woman fold her stroller, and said “its the law”. After some discussion, the ambassador, said, well, you are going to get a warning. Immediately after saying this, the ambassador got on her phone to ask for law enforcement backup. Of course this sent the woman into anger, since she had just been told she would get a warning, and now was being threatened with law enforcement action.

The woman and stroller were not causing any issue whatsoever for any other passenger. It was the ambassador that decided there was a problem, and created a problem. The escalation of this incident was by the ambassador, not the rider.

Law enforcement officers boarded at Sunrise. I stated to an officer that the ambassador had escalated the situation. I do not know the outcome because that was my destination, so I got off.

So what is the regulation that the woman was supposedly violating? The sign posted is below.

So, what is PUC 99170 (6)(d)? There is no such thing. You can look at the PUC code yourself (DIVISION 10. TRANSIT DISTRICTS, PART 11. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PUBLIC TRANSIT, CHAPTER 3. Miscellaneous). Perhaps the sign was intended to say (a)(6) ‘Violate a notice, prohibition, instruction, or direction on a sign that is intended to provide for the safety and security of transit passengers, or the safe and secure operation of the transit system’. Since the sign does not refer to a valid PUC code, the sign is illegal, and if any citations were given based on this sign, they should be dismissed.

What this PUC code does is allow a transit district to create regulations and supporting signs IF for the ‘safety and security of transit passengers’. Given that SacRT has not made any finding, so far as I am aware, that strollers are a safety hazard for other passengers, why did SacRT suddenly decide that this was necessary? The signs are fairly new, though I’ve been out of town for much of that last two months, so I’m not sure when they were installed. I’m pretty sure they were installed because SacRT has become an enforcement-first agency, not really concerned with riders at all.

The regulation that I found, not findable through SacRT website search, but with external search, on the Laws and Rules page, “Riding in a Vehicle with Stroller/Utility Cart unless, prior to boarding, the children or goods are removed and the Stroller/Utility Cart is folded and/or stored so that it does not block the aisle or the areas reserved for persons in wheelchairs or who use mobility aids.”

I have certainly seen large strollers that don’t fit within any area on the train (by the way, SacRT made the decision to purchase ‘US ultra-short’ versions of the Siemens cars, knowing that they did not have sufficient space for bicycles or other devices).

Where does this law-enforcement-first attitude and action come from? Lisa Hinz is the SacRT Vice President for Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction, which includes the Transit Ambassador program. She is a former police officer with the City of Sacramento Police Department. Her view of everything is authoritarian and rule-bound. Her presentations to the board have hidden information, given wrong impressions, and included outright lies. Why SacRT put a former police officer in charge of ‘customer satisfaction’, I have no idea.

Some background. When I got on the train with my bicycle, the ambassador was standing in the space reserved for bicyclists. She refused to move. So I stood with my bicycle the entire way. The ambassador had earlier talked to a woman with a shopping cart about folding. I did not hear all of that conversation, but the other woman was not threatened with a warning, nor forced to fold her shopping cart, nor removed from the train, nor subject to law enforcement. Apparently shopping carts are not considered the threat that baby strollers are.

I did not observe the ambassador to have a positive interaction with any rider. Apparently the change from ‘fare inspector’ was just a change in terminology, not a change in approach to public service. The lead illustration on the SacRT Safety and Security page is of four officers with full gear and frowning at the camera. What message does that send to riders?

Progressive transit agencies across the US have liberalized stroller policies in order to meet the needs of parents traveling with strollers. See

While other transit agencies move forward, SacRT moves backward. This policy is family-hostile. No good reason. No surprise.

CTA (see above link) has the following text. This is what a real transit agency would do.

Traveling with strollers

Children in open strollers are welcome on CTA, however we encourage parents to be considerate of other customers and adhere to these rules when traveling with a stroller.

Keep strollers clear of aisles and doorways aboard buses and trains.

If a bus or train becomes crowded, please fold your stroller to make room for others. Also, if a bus or train is crowded, a CTA employee may ask you to fold your stroller or wait for another vehicle—please follow their instructions. During certain periods of high ridership, we may require that all strollers be folded before you board.

Seniors and riders with disabilities have priority use of the Priority Seating area aboard buses and trains. If these seats are not in use, open strollers may be parked in this area to help you to keep from blocking the aisle. On buses, you may also request use of the access ramp or lift to help you board and exit.

Please yield Priority Seating areas if a rider with a disability, a senior, or a person using a mobility device wishes to board. 

Children in an open stroller should be seated and secured in the stroller before boarding the bus or train. If traveling with an open stroller in a multi-level facility, please use elevators or ramps where available (strollers are never permitted on escalators). On train station platforms, position your stroller parallel to the platform edge (not facing it), use wheel locks/brakes and stay with the stroller at all times.

observations on Philadelphia

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I just spent five days in Philadelphia. As always, most of my observations are about transportation, but I notice other things as well.

  • transit is about average for amajor city; most is run by SEPTA
    • an old trolly line (1906) runs above ground and in subway to city hall, using old trolley cars
    • several rapid transit lines run within Philadelphia; I have used L, B, and T lines
    • bus and rail use CharlieCard or contactless credit card payment for city rail and buses
    • commuter rail (regional rail) to several distant suburbs in the region, and ferries, use mTransit app
table of SEPTA Metro services, from Wikipedia
SEPTA Metro services, from Wikipedia
  • transportation and street design
    • most streets in Philadelphia are one-way, but many are single lane, so this is better than it sounds; one lane, one-way streets are safer than other streets
    • typical residential streets are narrow one-way with parking on both sides, but wide arterial streets do exist, and Philadelphia is sliced and diced with freeways, as are most cities
    • several streets in the historical sections of town have a cobblestone or brick paver surface, which slows motor vehicles considerably; not sure if these are original or restored
    • though there is quite a bit of bicycling in Philadelphia, drivers have not responded by being more careful, in contrast to the transition that has happened in other cities
    • all kinds of bicycle facilities are present: none, bike lanes, separated bike lanes, parking protected bike lanes, sidewalk level bike lanes, and two-way bikeways (cycletracks)
    • a bike-share system, Indego, is present in much of the city, and is quite usable with pedal bikes and e-bikes; however, the app (bcycle) map sucks – attempted to zoom in results in zoom out
    • there is street and utility construction everywhere!
    • people walk a lot, and other people drive a lot
  • other
    • Philadelphia has a lot of parks, particularly in the older part of town and along the Schuylkill River, but has a paucity of street trees; I had an enjoyable walk along the Schuylkill River from downtown to the south end
    • the city seems typical for trashiness; I did not notice any business improvement districts doing cleaning, but they may exist
    • the city hall is an amazing building, but better viewed from Market or Broad rather than up close
    • there are a lot of universities in the city, with the largest being University of Pennsylvania (UPenn)
    • pizza seems to be the fast food of choice; there are pizza places almost every block
    • the hostel, Apple Hostel of Philadelphia, is nice and a good deal, but the 24×7 pop music radio in the common room is offensive
    • I visited the Shofuso Gardens and House in Fairmount Park; it is small but quite nice
    • my favorite coffee shop, of the ones I visited, is Habitat Coffee, Spruce & 11th

I enjoy Philadelphia and will visit again.

a real street

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’m still in Philadelphia today, and will post some thoughts about the city tomorrow. But for today, I want to say again that smooth streets are dangerous streets. They encourage motor vehicle drivers to drive fast, too fast for conditions, and fast enough to kill any walkers or bicyclists they hit because they are driving too fast. Our street design encourages speeding, and rewards it. But we can design streets that discourage or even prohibit speeding.

The street below, 5th Street in the historical and old city part of Philadelphia, is a street with an appropriate surface, cobblestone pavers. Of course it is so for historical reasons, it has been preserved, and probably reconstructed, to preserve the historical feel of the area. Independence Square is to the left. I watched traffic on this street for quite some time. I saw absolutely no one speeding. The cobble surface enforces reasonable speeds. Of course the width of the street is not optimal. It is not clear whether it is two lanes or one, and it is not clear whether parking on the right side is permitted or not. But that is actually part of the benefit, by leaving drivers a bit confused, they drive even more slowly and carefully.

And if a driver does error, there are metal bollards separating the street from the sidewalk. Why is the ‘old’ way to protect walkers from errant drivers, while the ‘new’ way is to leave walkers at the mercy of errant drivers.

I’m pretty sure that all the streets in the old part of Sacramento, both ‘Old Sacramento Waterfront’ and the western part of the central city up to the Capitol, were cobblestone. I’ve seen utility projects digging up streets reveal the cobblestone beneath the asphalt. People think of asphalt as being the modern thing, and cobblestone as being old fashioned, but the fact is, cobblestone is the advanced street design, because it keeps motor vehicle drivers to safe speeds. We need to get back to the ‘old’ and safe ways.

photo of 5th St cobblestone between Walnut and Chestnut, Philadelphia
5th St cobblestone between Walnut and Chestnut, Philadelphia

SacCity parking for free

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts on parking in the City of Sacramento, see category: parking management.

The proposed City of Sacramento budget has increases in penalty fees for parking illegally, as documented in the recent SacBee article (Sacramento proposes hiking parking violation fees amid $66M budget shortfall, Ishani Desai, 2026-04-30). Not explicitly stated, but implied, is that parking fees will not be increased at this time.

I am glad that penalties will be increased, though I think they should be increased a great deal more. The ‘The fee for parking in a bike lane could increase to $150, up from $50.’ is great, though it should be much higher. Not called out in the list is parking blocking crosswalks. This may fall under one of the other categories, or it may not. When I have reported blocked crosswalks via 311, the report back is usually either no citation was issued, or the vehicle was gone, though I have observed many times that the vehicle is still there. Apparently the parking officers don’t consider blocking crosswalks to be a big deal. I do! The penalty for blocking a crosswalk should be enforced, should be a separate listed category, and should be $500. When people walking have to go outside the crosswalk to cross a street, it reduces their visibility and increases their exposure to traffic violence. This is not a victimless habit.

Increasing parking fees was one of the possible budget solutions proposed by Public Works, which controls parking in the city. The proposed budget does not increase parking fees. I understand this, given the current focus on affordability. But I think increased fees should be on the table. Even in the highest rate zones, the parking fee does not cover the true cost of providing that on-street parking space.

But the elephant in the room is that the city gives away free parking almost everywhere.

Residential parking permits, required to park in non-metered parking spots in the central city (the map below shows more or less where those zones are), are available to any resident. The cost? Free, zero, nada, zip. Residents can park their privately owned vehicle on the street within three blocks of their residential address, and pay nothing to the city for that privilege. See Residential Permit Parking (RPP). Charging a minimal fee for a residential parking permit would be a good start on actually managing parking in the city. How about $20 per month, or $240 per year?

How many vehicles are on the street with free residential parking permits? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a big dent in the city budget deficit.

Even more egregious is that the city charges absolutely nothing in the vast majority of the city. The map below shows metered parking in the city, which is essentially just the central city. Outside this area, parking is free. Storing a private vehicle on public property provided by the city, and taxpayers? Nothing! These areas outside the central city are probably not a ‘valuable’ as the central city (though the cost of providing free parking is just the same), so maybe a offer a deal, $10 per month, or $120 per year.

How many vehicles are on the street in this vast free parking area? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a huge dent in the city budget deficit.

Note that I am not proposing that additional areas of the city be metered, though there are arguments for metering some locations with high commercial and residential activity. The investment in meters, installation and maintenance, is worthwhile only where parking is heavily used, and turn-over is highly desirable.

map of SacCity boundary, and metered parking
SacCity boundary, and metered parking

There is no such thing as free parking. The cost of parking includes, but is not limited to:

  • the original cost of constructing the parking lane
  • the land value of parking lane that could be occupied instead by more productive uses
  • maintenance of the parking lane, including street sweeping, leaf season pickup, and pavement replacement
  • resistance from people parking for free to any change in the street that might decrease parking, while improving safety and livability; this might include wider sidewalks, bike facilities, and traffic calming measures such as curb extensions
  • increased heat island effect from black asphalt in the parking lane
  • increased storm runoff from the parking lane

I am not against on-street parking. It does serve a public need, and it does slow traffic speeds a bit through ‘friction’. But why do we give it away for free, ever, and particularly under a budget crisis? Because we privilege the desires of private motor vehicle owners over all other people and all other priorities.

sidewalk-level bikeway in Philadelphia

Dan Allison2 Comments

One of the many reasons that I travel is to see transportation facilities in different places, ways in which cities have made active transportation and transit better, or worse. I’m in Philadelphia at the moment, and one of the features that has been implemented is…

photo of sidewalk-level bikeway on Market St in Philadelphia
sidewalk-level bikeway on Market St in Philadelphia

These sidewalk-level separated/protected bikeways are on several blocks of Market Street, the main east-west street in Philadelphia. These are new, and were under construction during my last visit a year ago. NACTO calls these Raised Protected Bike Lanes, with designs on the Separating Protected Bike Lanes page (scroll down for this design section).

These bikeways are visually distinctive from the adjacent sidewalk, composed of different materials and colors, red brick for the sidewalk (many sidewalks in Philadelphia are brick), grey granite for the separation, and black asphalt for the bikeway. NACTO recommends a tactile warning delineator (TWD) between the sidewalk and bikeway. The granite separator and change of texture may or may not meet this criteria for visually impaired people. Though

Philadelphia downtown has a significant bicyclist mode share, but it mostly seems to be on the north-south arterials and collectors, not on east-west streets. But this may be an artifact of the time of day I observed. It has a wide variety of bike facilities: traditional bike lanes, vertical delineator ‘separated’ bikeways, two-way separated bikeways (cycle tracks), parking protected bikeways, bikeways along transit islands. I don’t know the criteria, but I suspect that available roadway width is a determinant.

Sacramento is proposing a sidewalk-level bikeway (2-way cycle track) on H Street between 9th Street and 10th Street, at City Hall. I believe the design is for paint on the existing sidewalk, not reconstruction of that section. It will be interesting to see if this design works.

transit in Boston

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’m traveling on a Amtrak Rail Pass, three weeks from Sacramento to the east coast, and back. So far I’m mostly been in Boston and the Boston region of Massachusetts.

The transit agency is MBTA, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. If you are as old as I am, you will probably remember the Kingston Trio version of “M.T.A.” where Charlie couldn’t get off the train because he didn’t have the exit fare: “Did he ever return? No he never returned, And his fate is still unlearn’d, He may ride forever ‘neath the streets of Boston, He’s the man who never returned.” MTA is now MBTA, but Charlie lives on through the CharlieCard, a fare payment card. Knowing I was going to Boston, I applied for a senior CharlieCard, which provides half off subway, light rail, and bus trips. The system is in transition, so the card is only proof of senior qualification, and fares can’t be added. Yet. But MBTA is one of the major transit systems that have implemented contactless fare payment, and also provides registration for contactless credit cards, so I could use my registered credit card to get the senior fare, $1.10 instead of $2.40.

The MBTA Commuter Rail lines, which go to distant suburbs, and even as far as Providence in Rhode Island, use the mTransit app, but I also get half off on that with the RTA senior card. I look the Framingham/Worcester line to Southborough, and then a local bus to Marlboro, to attend the New England Folk Festival (NEFFA). The train I took was an ancient single level train, with very worn seats, though I can’t pin down how old. There are also newer bi-level cars on the route. Both the bus and commuter rail have a much less frequent and less span of service on Sunday, so I caught a ride back into the Boston area and took the Red Line subway back to my hostel (which is only five blocks away from the Red Line).

I also used the Green Line light rail (which is underground in the central city) to get to the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) and other destinations. This is the original but still existing service, and the cars are noisy and rickety, though much better than when I last rode about 30 years ago. The Green Line was also very close to my hostel, about two block to the Boylston Station at Boston Commons. I did not have occasion to ride the Orange Line or Blue Line subways. These apparently have nearly modern subway cars. There is also a BRT line that serves the airport and downtown, which I have not used.

The City of Boston is about 676,000 population over 48 square miles (14,000/square mile), in a MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) of 4.9 million over 49 square miles. For comparison, City of Sacramento is about 525,000 over 100 square miles (5,250/square mile), in an MSA of 2.5 million over an MSA of 21,500 square miles. Though the population of the two areas is not dissimilar, Sacramento has a primitive transit system while Boston has a world-class (for the US) system. Why? Density, density, density. Boston is three times more dense that Sacramento.

Of course transit in Boston started in 1834, and subway service in 1897. Sacramento didn’t even exist in 1834. In 1897, Sacramento had a population of about 30,000. Sacramento is a wet-under-the-collar cow town.

If Sacramento had developed as a dense urban place instead of a sprawl city, it could have had a transit system like Boston, below.

Boston has busy arterials, just like Sacramento. But off the arterials, there is very little car traffic. People get around on transit. About 1/4 of workers (which does not include people too old or too young to drive) are car-free in Boston, and even those that have motor vehicles do not use them on a continuous basis like many in Sacramento.

Yeh, that classic excuse of, well, Sacramento is not Boston. No, but it could have been. It could have been a real city, a ‘world-class city’.

map of MBTA rail and major bus routes
MBTA Rapid Transit and frequent bus routes map

granite curbs

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’m in Massachusetts for a folk festival. The town I’m in, Marlboro, has granite curbs (kerbs) almost everywhere. I had first seen these many years ago in New Hampshire, but apparently they are quite common in New England. Most historic districts require them, and they are used in many other areas as preferred by the town or city.

There are distinct advantages of granite curbs over the traditional western model of curb and gutter:

  • granite curbs last practically forever
  • granite curbs can be moved inward to narrow streets or widen sidewalks
  • gutters are not required

If a western street is changed, the transportation agency will almost always neglect the sidewalks in part because they don’t want to move curbs. Digging up and discarding curb and gutter is expensive and wasteful. Granite blocks are about 16 inches deep, but depth and width may vary. With granite curbs, simply dig a new trench and move the curb blocks to the new trench. If the curb needs to be reset, it can be done in short sections rather than tearing up long stretches of concrete.

Granite for curbs is more expensive on initial installation than concrete, roughly 1.5 times. However, concrete curbs may last as little as 30 years, while granite curbs are as much as 200 years old. Life cycle cost analysis indicates that granite is far less expensive in the long run than concrete, because the concrete must be removed, disposed of, and replaced. Looked at over a long period of time, granite is by far the most cost effective. It may be that granite would be more expensive in California. New Hampshire, after all, is ‘The Granite State’.

So called ‘modern’ curb and gutter is claimed to direct water flow away from the roadway to reduce roadway damage, but after looking at dozens of website about this design, not a single one actually explained why gutters were better than roadway profile where the drainage is to the granite curb. I suspect it is one of those street design engineering mythologies that has propagated without any research or proof.

Note that in the photo below, concrete sidewalk has been replaced or patched several times, but the granite curb is original.

photo of granite curb on Essex St in Boston
granite curb on Essex St in Boston

people watching

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

My favorite thing about living in a city, and about the cities I visit, is people watching. I love sitting with a tea or beer, and just watching people passing, or talking, or working, or reading, or writing. This is best when there is outdoor seating. A positive benefit of the pandemic (despite the horror) is that outdoor seating is much more common now that it was before. Outside is the best people watching. People are walking themselves, or their dogs, or their friends, or kids, or partners. Sometimes I make connections with other people, particularly people reading or writing in journals, as I am often doing myself, but the connection or just watching are both enjoyable to me.

People watching, and connecting, works best in dense places, with places to see, and places to meet. That means coffee shops (see coffee shops (tea) on the grid: update 2026-01), most of all, but breweries and restaurants and other businesses as well. Out in the suburbs, coffee shops are few and far between, and usually national chains when they are found at all. You might see people walking their dogs in the suburbs, but it is rare to see people walking to local businesses, or sitting outside. Where I live, coffee shops are thick, and breweries are to be found. Even small towns have a decent selection of coffee shops and sometimes breweries. As I write, I’m in Marlborough, MA, with several coffee shops and one brewery, and I’m looking out the window at people coming and going, and the coffee shop is busy on Sunday morning.

What does this have to do with transportation? Walkable places are where to see people, to people watch and make connections. Only places that are walkable and bike-able have this opportunity. Places that are drive-able don’t offer this. And that is why I very much dislike places that emphasize driving over walking and bicycling.

Spending time in small towns that are alive has made me appreciate that small towns can offer much of what cities offer, if they are old towns that have survived and thrived. Many small towns have not thrived. The problem with the place I’m visiting, Marlborough, is that it has poor transit, and infrequent connections to other transit, the MBTA ‘T’ commuter rail. If you can figure out a life in a small but vibrant town, that has a decent connection to the outside world, that may be the best livability you can find. But that combination is rare.

Here’s to people watching, and walkable places!

‘complete streets’ or sidewalks?

Dan Allison1 Comment

For previous posts on sidewalks and walkability, see category: sidewalks, and category: walkability.

Almost every complete streets and safety project the City of Sacramento has undertaken has focused on the roadway part of the street, the part where motor vehicles and bicycles travel. They have not focused on the sidewalks.

The ‘complete streets’ concept (note that I’ve placed it in quotes) emphasizes travel along corridors, not local travel and life. Lanes are narrowed or reduced. Bicycle facilities are added. A few safer crossings are added. Sometimes parking is reduced or eliminated. This is all good. But by designing and building this definition of ‘complete streets’, sidewalks are usually neglected. If a sidewalk is present, that is considered good enough. ADA ramps are added at corners, which is good, but the sidewalks in between corners are often untouched. There is a reason for this: repaving a street and then re-striping for different roadway width allocation is cheap (relatively). Replacing and widening sidewalks, and moving curb lines, is expensive. The result of a ‘complete street’ is a street that eases, and perhaps makes safer, travel by bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers, but does little for people walking.

It is bad enough that sidewalks are not improved, but by refusing to move curb lines, and/or to remove private development within the public right-of-way, the common issue of sidewalk buffers (which the city calls planting strips, though they may be used for many purposes in addition to planting) is perforce neglected.

Sidewalk width

Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet, with widths up to 16 feet where the frequency of people walking justifies it. Many city sidewalks are five feet, and there are relict sidewalks of four feet. And of course there are many streets in the 50’s to 70’s developments that have no sidewalks at all. If a sidewalk is less than six feet, on a roadway that is being reconfigured or reconstructed, the sidewalk should be widened to at least six feet. Wider if justified by walking.

Driveways

In locations with sidewalk buffers, the slope of a driveway in often across the sidewalk, which makes the sidewalk dangerous for anyone in a mobility device, and uncomfortable for all walkers and rollers. Much of south and north Sacramento suffer from this design. Where it is present, it must be corrected. There is a correction available which ramps the sidewalk down and then up again across the driveway, and this is legal in PROWAG, but it is and should be the design of last resort. The better design is to slope the driveway across the buffer. And to remove unnecessary driveway. Strong SacTown and I will write more about this.

Sidewalk buffers

Sidewalk buffers, where they are present, are almost always too narrow to support healthy, mature trees. A healthy tree needs a sidewalk buffer of eight feet or more. If the buffer is six feet, as is common, an assessment should be made about the health and type of trees, to determine whether a wider buffer is needed. If the tree is healthy, and the sidewalk not heaved by roots, probably best to leave it alone. If the buffer is narrower than six feet, it should be widened, with curb line moved if necessary. And if a buffer is absent, it must be installed. Sacramento is the ‘city of trees’. Unfortunately, it is also the city of constrained and unhealthy trees that have heaved sidewalks, because the city and developers did not care to create a safe, healthy place for them to grow. In neighborhoods of north and south Sacramento, where buffers were not created, there are often almost no trees at all. The trees on private property have died and not been replaced, and the city has not provided trees. These are miserable places to live and walk.

Funding constraints

So, given that curbs and sidewalks are more expensive than re-striping a street, what is the solution? The city’s solution is to neglect the sidewalks, and thereby neglect the trees. My solution is that corridors being reconstructed need to be shortened in order to free up money to do the sidewalks, and sidewalk buffers, right. This is a long term investment. Streets usually only last about 40 years before needing significant work. Sidewalks and sidewalk buffers are a long-term investment, that pays off for livability and reduces city liabilities every day, every budget cycle. The sidewalks and 12 foot sidewalk buffers in the Poverty Ridge area of Sacramento (see sidewalk buffer widths) are in good condition after 100 years or more. Sidewalks have required minor repairs in a few places, but most of the work was for utilities. The buffers have been used for a variety of purposes: trees, gardens, seating areas, play equipment, etc. Not just planting.

If a street is being reconstructed, do it right. Make sure there are wide sidewalks and wide sidewalk buffers. If that means that 10 blocks can be completed instead of 40 blocks, so be it. Do it right, and it will last, and will contribute far more to livability and walkability that a roadway reconfiguration.

The photo below shows a section of Stockton Blvd with a sufficiently wide buffer (wider would be better), and healthy trees (at least until they mature). But this is an unusual section of Stockton. Much of Stockton has narrow sidewalks and no sidewalk buffers. The city is planning to spend a lot of money on reconfiguring the roadway on Stockton, but is not fixing the sidewalks nor adding sidewalk buffers except in a few places.

photo of sidewalk buffer with trees, Stockton Blvd
sidewalk buffer with trees, Stockton Blvd