There is a new development occurring on the southwest corner of 16th Street and E Street, 30 affordable apartments, apparently called Studio 30. This is something that I always support, more housing, more affordable housing.

Work zone failure

But why does a good project have to have a negative impact on people walking? The answer, of course, is that the city allows it. And in this case, the city’s street design in this area makes the situation worse, and impossible to provide safe and convenient ADA access. The details are below, a lot of detail, but I think it is important to document just how wrong things can be.

First, the project’s ADA compliance, or lack thereof. Approaching the project on E Street from the west, there is a sidewalk closed sign (photo below), but it is on a barricade which is also a tripping hazard. It isn’t clear whether the hose snaking down the sidewalk is related to the project or not, but it is another tripping hazard. Of course a person wanting to continue east on E Street might have been warned at the prior corner, as required by law, that the sidewalk was closed ahead, but there is no signing of any sort at the corner of E Street & 15th Street. If a blind person succeeded in bypassing the barricade without tripping, the chainlink fence at the project does not meet detectability requirements, nor is it signed.

Though the crosswalk over E Street, and over 16th Street is closed, there is no barricade or sign at the beginning of the crosswalk to indicate that. When reaching the other side, there are detectable barriers over part of the crosswalk, but not detectable chainlink fence over the other, and again, no sign. The pedestrian signal has not been covered, inducing possible confusion, though the law requires it be covered. Note the diagonal ADA ramp, which was not illegal when built, but is now, and should never have been constructed.

Same situation for the crossing of 16th Street at E Street, no barricade or sign to indicate that the crosswalk is closed. There is a barricade to the side, but no sign on it. When reaching the other side, there are detectable barriers over the crosswalk, but again, no sign. At least the perpendicular curb ramp would allow the required barricade to be placed. And again, the pedestrian signal has not been covered, leading to confusion.

Approaching the project along the west side of 16th Street, there is no warning at F Street. A person approaching on the north side of F Street would have no idea of the closed sidewalk ahead.

And when that person got to the construction project, this is what they would see. A non-detectable chainlink fence with no signing, and a car parked on the sidewalk. This is the sort of situation that would cause a blind person to give up and go home, if they could even safely make it home.

On the south side of this F Street and 16th Street intersection, there is a sidewalk closed sign, the one thing that the project has done right. Of course right in this case means confusion. There is a business and house north of the intersection, and an open sidewalk on F Street, so at this point there should be a warning but not closure. But this awkward situation is created by the city’s poor street design, detailed below. The sign and crossing should be on the north side of the intersection, closer to the closed sidewalk, but the city has prohibited crossing on the north side.

Before going on with the city mistake, it is worth noting that there are detour signs placed on several corners around the project. The photo below shows these on the southeast corner of 16th Street and F Street. Nice, but not required by CA-MUTCD, and not really helpful. If the work zone were properly barricaded and signed, these would be superfluous. These also demonstrate the common practice of grabbing whatever signs are available, without thinking about what they actually mean. This is NOT a detour for bicycles.

Illegal and dangerous city street design

Now, back to the intersection of F Street and 16th Street. The city has prohibited crossing on the north leg of this intersection, by posting signs (MUTCD R9-3a), and there is no crosswalk here. Of course posting of such signs without a detectable barrier is illegal. A blind person cannot see this sign across the street, and there is nothing to indicate that crossing is not permitted, except stepping off the curb and falling into traffic. Notice that the sign is a bit hard to see, and does not stand out. Imagine if you were vision limited. Again, a diagonal ramp might lead one to think that there were two crosswalks here, when in fact there is only one. The city has known for years that perpendicular ramps are safer, but it saves a few dollars by installing diagonal ramps.

Coming along F Street westbound, there is the same prohibition, again without any detectable barrier, and with a diagonal ramp that would indicate two crosswalks.

So why is this prohibition here? Why no crosswalk? There is no reason. There is nothing about this intersection, or the traffic on F Street, that would indicate the need for prohibiting pedestrian crossing. Is is for safety? No. It is for the convenience of drivers, one less time they might need to slow for someone crossing the street and lose a second of their driving time. This is the kind of thing that City of Sacramento Public Works loves. But it is unnecessary, and it is ILLEGAL. All intersections have legal crosswalks on all legs, whether they are painted or not, and if a leg does not have a crosswalk, the law (PROWAG) and best practice (MUTCD) require a detectable barrier so that a blind person knows that crossing is prohibited.

All these posts on the city’s draft Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events policy (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Planning-Projects/Work-Zone-and-Event-Detours), and all the posts over the years about construction zone issues, might seem like beating a dead horse. Everyone, including construction companies and staff in the city’s department of Public Works, knows that these issues existed and continue to exist. And will continue to exist unless the city does its job of monitoring and enforcing work zones. I’m not hopeful.

Some people might blame the construction companies. I don’t. They are doing exactly what the city encourages them to do, a sloppy and illegal job of signing and barricading the work zone.

Posts related to the work zone guidelines are linked via category ‘Work Zones‘ within City of Sacramento category. Posts previous to the release of the draft guidelines, of which there are a considerable number, are linked via tag ‘construction zone‘ within Active Transportation category.