Part three of what’s next, part two being What’s Next: parking, and part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.

Without additional funding, the city will continue to seek grants for infrastructure projects, and will continue to make some traffic calming changes such as temporary curb extensions, both of which are good. But the huge number of poorly designed roadways, and in particular unsafe intersections, means that progress would be measured in decades if not longer. The capacity of arterial and collector streets must be reduced, but with actions that don’t require much money, since there won’t be much money.

Immediately close all slip lanes: Slip lanes allow high speed turns with drivers looking only left for other vehicles, never right for people walking. Even when stop signs are present, drivers make high speed turns. These are a clear and present danger to people walking, and should immediately be closed, with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers. This would also have the effect of reducing roadway capacity.

Close all dedicated right turn lanes: Similar to slip lanes, dedicated right turn lanes increase roadway capacity and decrease safety. Again, drivers look left for other motor vehicles and not right for walkers. These lanes also lengthen crossing distance for walkers at the intersection. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.

Close all dedicated left turn lanes beyond one: Multiple left turn lanes are a hazard to drivers, increase the capacity of a roadway in such as way as to encourage drivers to consider the roadway a highway, and lengthen crossing distances for walkers. Drivers are paying attention to the vehicle beside them and not to what is ahead of them. Left turn lanes are a positive for traffic flow, but one does it. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.

Close unnecessary center turn lanes: Center turn lanes may be appropriate where there is a density of driveways and therefore turning movements, and only one general purpose lane per direction. Otherwise, all traffic must wait behind turners, and people turning onto the roadway create conflicts with through traffic. Center turn lanes are a hazard – a common name for them is ‘suicide lanes’ – but they can be useful in some areas. However, they are unnecessary where there are two or more lanes in a direction, increasing capacity but with a significant negative safety effect. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.

Remove all lanes over two per direction: This is probably the most expensive suggestion, since there are miles of three lane arterials in Sacramento, and far more outside the city. Transportation advocates refer to these roadways as ‘traffic sewers’, intended to flush motor vehicles in and out of the city during commute times. They feel like highways, and they are used like highways, drivers traveling at high speeds and not expecting any conflicts. Intersections on these roadways have much higher crash rates than other locations. Perhaps we could start with roadways with a demonstrated higher crash rate.

Reducing roadway capacity is directly contrary to the design of roadways over the last 70 years, which is to speed and ease the flow of motor vehicles. It is also contrary to the desires of most traffic engineers. But it is exactly what we need to do, to discourage motor vehicle use, to reduce environmental impacts, and to make our roadways safer places for everyone. And in particular, to start the process of making people walking and bicycling to once again feel welcome on our streets.

I’ve mentioned closures with concrete barriers. What I have in mind is pieces of K-rail, the concrete barriers that one sees at construction projects, to separate motor vehicle traffic from the construction area. They are ugly, and they tend to become worse with reuse, gradually deteriorating into rounded hunks of concrete, but they are relatively cheap and widely available. They also require simple installation. Vertical delineators are somewhat more expensive and require more complicated installation, but are more aesthetically pleasing. Of course concrete is most effective, since vertical delineators can easily be run over by drivers, but I still prefer delineators. Other cities have used a number of creative solutions and objects to reduce roadway capacity, and to keep motor vehicle out of places they don’t belong, so there are widely available ideas on the Internet.