A number of people have commented, here and other places, that my idea of converting parallel parking to diagonal parking is wrong. There should be bike lanes instead. These comments come from a misunderstanding of context. I’ve written some while ago about diagonal parking, and it is mentioned in many of my posts about parking and street design, particularly sidewalk-level bikeways and bike lane widths.
What I intend is a transportation system where:
- Streets designed for 20 mph and under don’t need any bike facilities, as they are naturally traffic calmed. Bike lanes would be a waste of space. Where these streets are too wide, diagonal parking is a great solution for narrowing the street.
- Streets from 21 to 30 mph need standard Class 2 bike lanes. Visual separation from motor vehicles is needed.
- Streets from 31 to 40 mp need separated bikeways. In most cases these should be at sidewalk level, not at street level, but street level bikeways can be a temporary measure until the street is redesigned. These bikeways need to be sufficiently wide to accommodate passing and all types (widths) of bicycles and mobility devices.
- Streets 41 mph and above are NOT streets, they are roads, and should be designed as such. No driveways, no street facing retail or commercial, few intersections. These are for getting someplace fast. These roads do not need bicycle facilities at the edge of the road. What is needed is a completely separate transportation system that keeps bicyclist safe and completely separated from motor vehicle traffic.
Is any of this real right now? No. Nothing like this exists in the Sacramento region. But I strongly believe it is the goal we should be moving towards, with haste. And diagonal parking on slow but overly wide streets provides traffic calming and more efficient use of space.
Getting Around Sacramento 
Thanks for the post. Agreed on the need to narrow streets!
I agree that not all streets need bike lanes per se. In your 2013 post you mentioned 17th between N&O, what are some other examples of slow-moving streets where you envision using diagonal parking to further slow traffic?
4th Ave by Wellspring (https://bit.ly/46SdBjt) has diagonal parking on the south side, but it does little to calm traffic, and when those spots aren’t taken during the day, the street is simply extra wide. I think my preferred solution would be to narrow the street by extending the south sidewalk either with paint or planters (ideally parking-space trees as you’ve suggested), having parallel parking, and using paint to stripe a single shared E/W lane.
Whatever the solution, would be the place to start implementing these ideas? I know it’s something the ATC discusses, but the status quo and lack of funding makes any progress feel near impossible.
I wonder if 2nd Ave through Oak Park, Curtis Park, and Land Park wouldn’t be a terrible place for some experimentation. It already has Class 2 lanes, but it could be more thoughtfully designed (as it is, bins frequently block the bike lanes). Another spot without true bike infrastructure: good old M St in East Sac. It’s extremely wide, sees lots of bike and pedestrian traffic, and cars can easily use J or Folsom instead.
LikeLike
Where sidewalks are too narrow, or without buffer (planting) strips, that is the best use of street width.
The issue of trash bins blocking bike lanes is easy to solve, if the city wanted to. Just don’t pick up those bins, and people will quickly change their behavior.
M St does need changes to the right of way, it needs diverters (modal filters) every few blocks, to get through motor vehicle traffic out to J or Folsom.
Thanks for your detailed comment.
LikeLike