I said in my post about the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission meeting of May 16, and in an eComment, that I was generally in support of the Folsom Boulevard Safety Improvements Project, agenda item 3. I am still in support of the project, but conversations with a number of people since them have pointed out weaknesses in the project that I will comment on.

• Speed limit: The city does not propose to reduce the posted speed limit on the revised sections of roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and of course the design speed and typical speed is much higher. The reduction of general purpose (motor vehicle) lanes from four to two will result in lower speeds under some conditions, where a prudent driver sets the pace, but where there isn’t a prudent driver, other drivers will continue to travel well over the speed limit, creating the threat of traffic violence for all roadway users. Though not common, some drivers will use the center turn lane to pass slower drivers, increasing the danger for everyone. The city must reduce actual speeds with a safer design that enforces the desired speed.
• Gutter pan bike lane: For several segments, the project proposes to keep the existing wide gutter pans and use them as part of the bike lane. This is probably illegal under state law, but even if not, it is poor practice. The gutter pans are acceptable in some locations, but in many cases are quite deteriorated and not rideable. Either the gutter pan must not be counted as part of the bike lane, or it must be replaced.
• Lane widths: The projects indicates lane widths of 11 feet for the center turn lane and the two general purpose (motor vehicle) lanes, or 33 feet of the available roadway width. This is unnecessarily wide and will encourage drivers to travel at a higher speed than is safe. It is worth remembering that the fatality which initiated this project was due in part of excessive speed.
• Bike lane design: The bike lanes are indicated as five feet. This is the minimum required by law, but is insufficient. It does not allow for safe passing of one bicyclist by another, and limits use by wider bicycles such as cargo bikes and three-wheeled bikes. The bike lane buffer is as narrow as 1.2 feet in some segments. This does not provide any real sense of security for less confident bicyclists. In some sections, the bicycle buffer has vertical delineators (shown as K-71 green delineators), but in other sections has no delineators. The narrow buffers and lack of delineators will not encourage bicyclists to use Folsom Blvd as a travel route. It might be better to improve bicycle facilities on M Street and Elvas Avenue, which is a parallel route commonly used by bicyclists, students and others, from east Sacramento to Sacramento State via the Hornet Tunnel.
• Sidewalks: At no location in this entire project are sidewalk improvements shown. The sidewalks, where present, meet minimum standards, but do not have sidewalk buffers (planting strips), and there are several short sections with no sidewalk at all. Sidewalks without sidewalk buffers do not encourage people to walk. This is yet another city project with claimed safety benefits in which sidewalks are ignored as though they are not a critically important part of the transportation network. New ADA-compliant curb ramps are indicated in a few locations, but safer crossings are irrelevant if travel along the corridor is discouraged.
• Slip lanes: The slip lane for 51st Street southbound at Folsom is retained. The small pedestrian island between the two travel lanes is not comfortable for walkers. The project also retains slip lanes for Folsom Blvd eastbound to 65th Street south, and 65th Street eastbound to Folsom Blvd east. Slip lanes are hazardous for all roadway users, and should be removed whenever a street in reconfigured.
• Center turn lane: As with almost every project the city has proposed, there is a center turn lane along the entire length. I consider these to be a waste of roadway space except where the frequency of turning movements, to or from the major roadway, justify a center turn lane. Otherwise, they are just empty, seldom used space that could be better allocated to other uses.
• Driveway closures: Driveways are the single feature that creates the most difficulty for people rolliing, and people walking. Commercial properties should be limited to one driveway in/out, of 20 feet, or two driveways, one in, one out, or 20 feet each. Twenty feet is required for commercial driveways by fire regulations. Where driveways are available on side streets for commercial properties, they should be used and driveways on the main roadway closed or greatly narrowed.
• 48th Street flared intersection: The intersection of 48th Street to the south has a flared design, with extremely wide turning radii, leading to a crossing distance curb to curb of 140 feet! This is a crossing that intimidates walkers, yet the project makes no effort to correct this, or even acknowledge it.

In summary, this project presented as a safety improvement project has major weaknesses that reduce its effectiveness for safety. Remember that the fatality was on a sidewalk, and the result in part of a speeding driver. It was not a bicyclist. Of course I am in favor of higher quality and safer bicyclist facilities, but it seems to be the view of the city that if things are improved for bicyclists, walkers can be ignored. I strongly disagree.

This is another city project that could be transformative, but falls short. The city is unwilling to make our streets significantly safer by prioritizing walkers over others. The General Plan has this diagram. Worth repeating again and again, until the city finally takes it seriously.

I have to admit that I missed a number of these issues when I quickly scanned the project document. If readers see additional issues that I have missed, please comment.

The cross-sections below are from the project document. Each is option two, which has more visual separation of bicyclists from motor vehicles by using buffers and/or vertical delineators. Option one does not provide any separation. But the buffers reduce the bike lane widths to five feet. Whether narrower bike lanes with visual protection, or wider bike lanes with no separation except a white stipe, are better, is a question I do not have a clear answer for. But modern bikeway designs provide both visual, or actual, protection, and wider bike lanes. These bicycle facilities are the minimum acceptable.