The monthly meeting of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will be this Thursday, February 15, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers. The agenda includes five items. You can comment on these items, or on topics not on the agenda, ahead of time via eComment, or in person at the meeting. I encourage people to attend these commission meetings. There are usually very few members of the public in attendance, which means that your voice is important. Though eComments are valuable, in-person comments carry a lot more weight. The city’s planning staff is usually progressive and innovative, but Public Works in general is not, so it is important the citizens show up to push for progressive and innovative projects and policies. With some new appointments to the commission, and support of the public, the commission itself has been much more progressive than in past years.
Agenda item 3 is a presentation on the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study. The Truxel crossing of the American River was originally proposed and approved by SacRT and the county as a transit-walking-bicycling bridge, carrying light rail from downtown to Natomas. The city is now proposing a motor vehicle-transit-walking-bicycling bridge. They are claiming that the bridge would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the provision of alternative modes, and a shorter trip between downtown and Natomas, but has not presented data to justify this claim. New roadway capacity induces more motor vehicle trips, a well-established fact, so to claim otherwise requires proof. Walking and bicycling would be unlikely to be the major component of bridge users. Transit availability could reduce motor vehicle trips, but the Green Line to the Airport is probably decades away, and anything short of service to North Natomas would be unlikely to replace many car trips.
The city intends to go full speed ahead (pun intended) with the bridge, based on a 2013 city council approval, seeking public input only on the southern approach to the bridge and the bridge cross-section. Since 2013, the city has declared a climate emergency, the Mayors Commission on Climate Change goal is to achieve Carbon Zero by reducing VMT, the soon-to-be-adopted General Plan 2040 and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan aim for reducing VMT rather than increasing it, and SB 745 required VMT impacts as the primary criteria for judging projects. Most importantly, public awareness of the risk of motor vehicle induced climate change has emerged and strengthened.
This is a follow-up to my serious concerns about Broadway post. There will be additional posts about the Broadway Complete Streets project. The Broadway Complete Streets project is underway, with several locations of corners, midblock crossings, curbs, and sidewalks already reconstructed.
It is clear that throughout the planning and construction of this project, sidewalks were ignored or discounted. The project is all about the roadway, reducing motor vehicle lanes to 2 plus a turn lane (from 4), and adding buffered bikeways. It is common in project planning to assume that sidewalks will not be disturbed, and therefore do not need to be brought up to current ADA/PROWAG requirements. However, sidewalks are being replaced, newly constructed, in several locations along Broadway. That means they do have to meet current requirements, and that requirement is a clear width of 48 inches.
The Broadway Complete Streets Final Recommendations (2016) document identifies ‘Sidewalk obstructions or narrow sidewalks’ as a critical issue. It also says “The proposed road diet allows for a buffered bike lane through the entire corridor, and presents opportunities for pedestrian crossing improvements, new pedestrian crossings, and sidewalk enhancements.” However, other than curb extensions at intersections and mid-block crossings, nothing in the design actually enhances sidewalks. The ‘typical cross section proposed’ is below. Though the diagram shows 8 foot sidewalks, the actual sidewalk width varies greatly along the corridor.
Broadway Complete Streets typical cross-section proposedRead More »
CalBike is supporting SB 960, the Complete Streets bill (Senator Scott Wiener). See their post below. An earlier post here has some information about the Speeding and Fatality Emergency Reduction (SAFER) on California Streets package: Senator Wiener introduces road safety bills.
Slow Down Sacramento has announced a Traffic Safety Forum for March 2, 2024. The forum is in association with the Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association.
A recent email from Isaac Gonzalez said:
“I invite you to join us at our first-ever Traffic Safety Forum on Saturday, March 2nd, at Tahoe Elementary. We’ll delve into how we arrived at this critical juncture and brainstorm community-specific solutions that are both practical and swiftly implementable. This forum isn’t just about discussion; it’s about empowering each of us to initiate the change we desperately need. This past week’s events have reinforced the urgency of our mission. In our shared pursuit of solutions, your insights and experiences are invaluable. Let’s come together to turn the tide on this crisis, starting with our own neighborhoods.”
This is the second post on working differently to achieve the streets we want, and heal the streets we have. The first is Crash Rapid Response Program for SacCity.
Strong Towns Street Design Team
The concept of a street design team came to me from the Strong Towns Academy course ‘Establishing a Street Design Team‘. This is a paid course, but I’ll offer the key concepts here.
The origin the street design team is the Strong Towns post Engineers Should Not Design Streets. The upshot is that engineers do not have the training or expertise to design streets. Streets should be designed by everyone, and then the engineer will implement that design. The way to do that is to create a street design team with both professionals and citizens. The course presents this chart.
In the presentation, Mike Lydon recommended starting with designing streets that already have some good things about them, and making them better, rather than starting with horrible streets (stroads) that can take a lot of money and time to heal. Anthony Garcia said that if either engineers or politicians are not initially supportive, starting with a small project can show them that alternatives work and are supported by the public. He also said, don’t pick something really controversial or really challenging, rather, pick something likely to be successful.
The whole street design team concept is based on one of the core principals of Strong Towns, four steps for public investment.
for SacCity
I would say that the number of non-technical people should outnumber the technical professional. I would also include in the non-technical list the regional walking and equity organization, Civic Thread, and/or the regional bicycling organization, SABA, and/or one of the transit advocacy organizations. And I would include a member of the SacATC, which has 11 members. Non-technical people should be compensated in some way for their participation, such as stipends, food, transportation, child care.
People could speak up for being on a team, and then a team for each issue or block would be assembled from those available. Though team application and team formation could be managed by the city, they would not be in charge of the team. Though the concept does not specify how big the team should be, I find that teams of more than 12 people tend to have issues with hearing from everyone. Team members would have to agree to a set of group guidelines or community agreements about how to treat each other, with respect, listening more than talking.
A team might stay together for more than one project, or might do only one before the team members disperse to other projects.
Next step? I’m not sure. I intend to talk to some SacATC member and city staff about the idea.
Note: This post has been significantly revised and published as two separate posts, one on OakDOT’s Rapid Response Program, and the second a proposal for a City of Sacramento program.
When a fatality or severe injury for walkers and bicyclists, people often ask, what can we do right now to prevent or reduce the severity of the next crash? This topic has come up a number of times at the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC), and communication by Slow Down Sacramento, Civic Thread, SABA, and other organizations. I believe now is the time for the City of Sacramento to establish and fund a crash rapid response program.
OakDOT Rapid Response Program
The City of Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT) seems to have the best program I could find on the Internet. This is not surprising – since being formed in 2016, OakDOT has led on developing programs for safer streets that are informed by equity. So far I have not found a single document that describes the program and procedures, so I’ve selected some information from the Safe Oakland Streets (SOS) and related pages and documents. Safe Oakland Streets is Oakland’s version of Vision Zero.
“Rapid Response Projects: OakDOT seeks to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries while promoting safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. OakDOT’s efforts to make streets safe include rapid responses to fatal and severe crashes involving the most vulnerable users of Oakland’s roadways. A Rapid Response is a coordinated effort in the days and weeks following a traffic tragedy that may include investigations, targeted maintenance, near-term improvements, and the identification and prioritization of longer-term capital needs.”
“A Rapid Response may be activated for traffic crashes resulting in pedestrian or bicyclist fatalities, or severe injuries to pedestrians or bicyclists who are youth or seniors. A Rapid Response may be activated for additional crashes based on the individual circumstances of a crash.”
The two elements most relevant to rapid response are:
Maintenance Treatment: If the crash location has a maintenance issue that may be related to traffic safety e.g., pavement defect, faded striping, missing sign), the maintenance issue will be rectified by field staff.
Quick-Build Improvement: If there are design treatments that could be implemented quickly at low cost, engineering staff will prepare the design and issue a work order for field staff to construct.
The following photos shows the setting after rapid response to a fatality that occurred at Harrison & 23rd. See Harrison & 23rd St Crash Response for more information.
photo of OakDOT rapid response project at Harrison & 23rd
OakDOT has a Crash Prevention Toolkit with photos of solutions, most of which are inexpensive and quick to implement.
OakDOT offers a map with locations of fatality crashes and relevant features such as high injury network and equity, Traffic Fatalities, City of Oakland. A chart, below, also shows yearly data for modes of travel. A Crash Analysis Infographic also communicates data visually.
OakDOT chart of traffic fatalities by mode over time
SacCity program outline
The city program should start small to make sure that there are sufficient resources of staff time and funding to do a good job. I would suggest in the first year responding only to crashes on the high injury network. Yes, those will get fixed with grants, but those are very long term projects, whereas quick fixes are also needed. An alternative would be to do only fatalities, not severe injury crashes.
A rapid response team should be composed of at least three people. One must be a traffic engineer. Others could be planners, law enforcement, and a member of an advocacy organization (Civic Thread for walkers and SABA for bicyclists). Though the participation of law enforcement may not be useful to the outcome, it is useful for educating police about street design.
It is important that the team review existing documentation and make a site visit. The full law enforcement incident report will not be available within the rapid response time frame, but sufficient detail should be available to determine the movements of the people involved in the crash.
The team should make a report within five working days of the crash, listing obvious and inexpensive fixes, prioritized by effectiveness. One or more of the fixes should be implemented within 20 working days of the crash.
Public Works staff should report to SacATC on a yearly basis on the rapid response program, the projects undertaken, staff time, and money spent. After the first year, this information should be used to develop a budget request for future years.
City of Sacramento should create a fatalities map similar to Oakland’s, with frequent updates, from SacPD information. The state SWITRS database always lags too far to be useful.
A dashboard should be developed that includes fatalities and severe injuries by type of mode and trends. SacATC has already requested a dashboard that would also show projects applied for, in progress, and complete.
As with any new program, this one would and should evolve as experience is gained and the public sees the value of the program in reducing or eliminating fatalities.
Adoption of the 2040 General Plan will likely be on the Sacramento Council on Tuesday, February 27, one month from now. Though the plan could be even better, and its success will depend on a number of documents to be finished after adoption, this is an innovative and forward-looking document, much better than the last one. I hope that you will speak in favor of adoption at this meeting. The Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, developed separately but supposed consistent with the general plan, will be adopted at the same time. The concepts of the Missing Middle Housing Project are also largely contained in the general plan. The documents that will be developed later include Streets for People Active Transportation Plan, Parking Management Plan, and Street Design Standards, and many others.
My previous posts on the 2040 General Plan are available in category ‘General Plan 2040‘.
Save the date – put it on your calendar now! It will likely be a 5:00PM meeting, though when the General Plan comes up for comment depends on what else is on the agenda.
I am expecting widespread support for the plan, from the public and council members, but nothing is guaranteed, and there are certainly forces for the status quo.
See you then! I will post more details when they become available. Many advocacy organizations will also be supporting the plan, so look to your own organizations for additional information.
Note: This post is not about the bicyclist fatality that occurred in this area recently. Not enough is known about that to post, yet. This is Central City Mobility Project update #34.
There is an issue with the 21st Street separated bikeway at W Street. The northbound bikeway transitions from the east side of 21st Street to the west side of 21st Street at W Street. There is a two-stage turn box on the northeast corner, intended for bicyclists who have crossed W Street on the green light to wait to cross 21st Street on the green light, to access the separated bikeway on the west side of 21st Street. The photo below shows the box being used by a walking bicyclist, who waited in the box. The signal has turned green and he has started to cross. A right-turning driver from W Street to 21st Street stopped suddenly to avoid hitting the bicyclist/pedestrian, because the driver did not expect to see someone there. The vegetation somewhat but not completely obscures someone in the box.
21st St at W St NE two stage turn box with bicyclist in box
The city has placed a ‘no turn on red’ sign on W Street, photo below. In about 40 minutes of observation, 60% of the drivers who could turn, meaning they were not blocked by a vehicle in front of them, did turn on red. This is the time when the box would be occupied by a bicyclist.
W St ‘no turn on red’ sign to 21st St
On the green light, drivers are taking the right turn at high speed. If there were a bicyclist or a walker crossing 21st Street, here, it is doubtful that many drivers would notice the person and brake in time. This is a severe injury or fatality waiting to happen. The video below shows drivers cutting across the two-stage turn box.
video of drivers cutting across the two-stage turn box on 21st St
Solution
A temporary solution is to install vertical delineators (flex posts) to block off the right hand lane of W Street approaching the intersection. There is a short section of red curb here, where the ‘no turn on red’ sign is, but the blocked off area should extend 20 feet up to the crosswalk, and be the width of the parking lane. A green K-71 vertical delineator, or two, should be placed at the southwest corner of the two-stage turn box, to force drivers to go around the turn box, and also slow turning movements. The diagram below indicates possible locations of vertical delineators, white dots. Base excerpted from CCMP plans.
A more permanent solution would be to reconfigure the northeast corner to add concrete barrier protection for the turn box. The city, having enticed bicyclists to this location, owes them a much higher level of protection that is currently offered.
The League of Women Voters Sacramento sponsored an online Climate Justice Mayoral Candidates Forum on Monday, January 22. Thirteen local climate and transportation advocacy organizations co-sponsored. Seven questions were asked of the five candidates (Jose Avina, Flo Cofer, Steven Hansen, Kevin McCarty, and Richard Pan). You can view the forum on YouTube.
Questions asked:
In 2019, the city council adopted a resolution declaring a climate emergency, committing to carbon neutrality by 2045 and to accomplishing as much action as feasible by 2030. Would you modify these dates, and if so, how would you do it?
Sacramento is getting hotter each summer, with more and longer heat waves. Other extreme impacts of climate change include flooding and stronger winter storms. These conditions impact our residents and especially our most vulnerable communities and the unhoused. How can the city do better in addressing these impacts for all residents of Sacramento?
Mayor Steinberg has proposed a countywide ballot measure that would establish a one and a half cent sales tax (incorrect) for an integrated approach to housing, safe and complete streets, transit, and climate innovations. Would you support such a measure in 2026? Why or why not?
Transportation is by far the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in our region. It is critical that we improve our public transit system and increase ridership. What role do you see the city and mayor playing in making this happen. What type of innovative transit projects would you seek to prioritize, and please include in your answer, the last time you used public transit.
The Mayors Climate Commission completed its work in 2020, and provided comprehensive recommendations for achieving carbon zero by 2045. Many of these recommendations are included in the city’s proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan which is scheduled for adoption this spring. The proposed plan has a price tag of over $3 billion, yet the city does not have funding set aside for this purpose. What would you do to ensure that funding and financing are addressed in a meaningful way so that the plan does not sit on the shelf?
Sprawl development continues throughout the region and contributes to increased vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, massive development is proposed for the Natomas basin north of downtown. What is your view on annexing city and county boundaries to facilitate this type of development? How do you balance the arguments that these developments would create new jobs and bring in revenue with the need to prevent further emissions-producing sprawl and encourage infill and urban development?
Active transportation options, walking, cycling and rolling, play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as improving health and quality of life. Safety is a reason often cited for not using these options. What can the city do to improve safety, provide additional opportunities, and encourage and incentivize active transportation?
As a strong believer in bike share, I note Steve Hansen’s reply that promoted bike share.
“I helped work with the city of Davis, West Sacramento, and the City of Sacramento through SACOG to launch our shared mobility program. Our JUMP system before the pandemic before the pandemic hit was as successful as the City of Paris, and what happened, though, is after it was sold to Uber and then Lime, disinvestment happened. We need to get back to likely a publicly owned system where we have connectivity.“
Getting Around Sacramento 