SacCity work zone monitoring

2023/12/262024/01/21 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

The problem with work zones at this time, before the adoption of a new 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), is that the city accepts incomplete and non-compliant Temporary Traffic Control Plans, and then does not monitor them for compliance. The success and safety of construction zones should not have to rely on the public reporting non-compliant locations, it should be the job of city staff to monitor compliance.

Monitoring

City staff should monitor construction zones at the beginning of the construction project when signs, barricades, and channelizing devices are installed, and at any point when there is a significant change to the locations closed or detoured sidewalks or bikeways. As an example, 9th Street between K Street and L Street changed dozens of times during the construction project, and in fact, the sidewalk at that location is still closed long after construction appears to be complete. Almost every change had one or more non-compliant aspects, though it did improve over time. At beginning of construction, the sidewalk and bikeway were closed without warning signs, and there was unrelated construction on the other side of the street which closed the sidewalk. This sort of issue should never have happened! It has long been a requirement to comply with MUTCD and ADA (even before PROWAG was finalized).

The draft guidelines define five work durations:

Long-term stationary is work that occupies a location for 5 days or more.
Intermediate-term stationary is work that occupies a location more than one daylight period up to 5 days, or nighttime work lasting more than 1 hour.
Short-term stationary is daytime work that occupies a location for more than 1 hour within a single daylight period.
Short duration is work that occupies a location up to 1 hour.
Mobile is work that moves intermittently or continuously.

I would not suggest that monitoring is necessary for durations C, D, and E, unless there is a citizen complaint about safety. For duration B, it should be inspected once, at the beginning. For duration A, it should be inspected at the beginning, and once per week thereafter. The additional monitoring would ensure that changes are captured and addressed, and that fallen signs, barricades or channelizing devices are corrected.

If there seems to be insufficient staff for monitoring, then the construction company must be charged more for the Temporary Traffic Control Plan and encroachment permit, sufficient to staff. The majority of construction is occurring in the central city, but there are locations throughout the city that must be monitored.

Enforcement

The draft guidelines do provide for administrative remedy, as follows. This will be sufficient, if Public Works staff follows through. However, in the past, staff has shown little concern for compliance, and has only responded to repeated citizen complaints.

Administrative Penalties
Implementation of the requirements for accommodations within these criteria and guidance must be paid for by the construction sponsor and it must be the responsibility of the construction sponsor to comply with the requirements of these criteria and guidance. Should the construction sponsor fail to comply, the Public Works Director or their delegate has the authority to stop all work until compliance has been achieved (§12.20.020). Such work will not be resumed until the necessary modifications have been implemented (§12.20.020). The Public Works Director or their delegate may issue an order imposing an administrative penalty to any person violating any provision of Chapter 12.20 Closure of Primary Streets for Construction.

SacCity work zone done wrong

2023/12/26 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

There is a construction zone at the northwest corner of Q Street and 21st Street which serves to illustrate what can go wrong with work zone signing. I am not picking on this particular construction site, as it is a rehabilitation of historical housing, which I fully support. I’ve seen worse construction sites, I’ve seen better construction sites, but this is a current example.

On Q Street at 20th Street, at the last crosswalk before the construction zone, there is the sign below. It is a roadway construction sign, not a sidewalk closure sign. Note that this sign was not here until I reported the location to 311. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-11a.

photo of Q-St at 20th-St advance warning sign — Sac_Q-St-20th-St_advance-warning

On Q Street approaching 21st Street, at the point of closure, there is this sign and a chainlink fence. This sign has been turned so it is not visible to someone approaching, and the traffic barricade on which it is mounted is a trip hazard. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-11. Chain link fence is not an acceptable detectable barricade. Imagine using a long cane and running into this. What would you think? What would you do?

photo of Q-St near 21st-St sidewalk closed ahead sign — Sac_Q-St-21st-St_sidewalk closed

For the crosswalk over Q Street at 21st Street, here is the sign. Note that this sign was not here until I reported the location to 311. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-10.

photo of 21t-St at Q-St sidewalk-closed ahead sign for crosswalk — Sac_21t-St-Q-St_sidewalk-closed ahead

On 21st Street crossing at Q Street, north side, there is a sign on the ground that was intended to mark the closed crosswalk, before it was knocked down by the wind or by people. This is what happens when work zone signing is not monitored by the construction company. Note that this sign was not here until I reported the location to 311. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-10.

photo of 21st-St at Q-St sign on ground for crosswalk — Sac_21st-St-Q-St_sign-on-ground

On 21st Street at P Street, there should be an advance warning sign. There is not. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-10.

photo of 21st-St at P-St no advance warning sign — Sac_21st-St-P-St_no-advance-warning

On 21st Street at Powerhouse Alley, where the sidewalk is closed, there is the sign shown below. Again, it is the incorrect sign, mounted on a traffic barricade that is in itself a trip hazard since it does not meet detectability requirements. The chain link fence is not an acceptable detectable barricade. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-11.

photo of 21st-St at Powerhouse-Alley sidewalk closed sign — Sac_21st-St-Powerhouse-Alley_sidewalk-closed

The use of incorrect signs, missing signs, and lack of detectable barricades, are problems that could be corrected, if the construction company had a compliant Temporary Traffic Control Plan, and if the city monitored the location for compliance. More about that in the next post.

SacCity work zone barricades and audible

2023/12/262024/01/12 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’ve spent more time looking at the 2023 MUTCD, Part 6, Temporary Traffic Control. The document is a bit convoluted, and I didn’t realize there were references in several locations, which taken together though not separately, provide better guidance for sidewalk barricades.

Figure 6K-2 provides a diagram for ‘pedestrian channelizing device’. The example is for the side of a temporary walkway, shown curved (though Figure 6P-29 shows right angles).

diagram of MUTCD-2023 Figure 6K-2 pedestrian channelizing device — MUTCD-2023 Figure 6K-2 pedestrian channelizing device

In a separate location, the notes page for Figure 6P-29, the text reads, Standard 1 “When existing pedestrian facilities are disrupted, closed, or relocated in a TTC zone, the temporary facilities shall be detectable and include accessibility features consistent with the features present in the existing pedestrian facility. A pedestrian channelizing device (see Figure 6K-2) that is detectable by a person with a vision disability traveling with the aid of a long cane shall be placed across the full width of the closed sidewalk.” The same channelizing device can be used as a barricade to close sidewalks. Imagine the left-most panel in the diagram, extending across the width of the sidewalk. I think that the three examples I used in my previous post (SacCity work zone comments) would be compliant, though I am not certain.

Audible Warning

Another item of critical importance, that I did not initially pick up on, is the new requirement for audible warning: Notes for Figure 6P-28, Standard 5 (page 914): “SIDEWALK CLOSED CROSS HERE signs shall include audible information devices to provide adequate communication to pedestrians with vision disabilities.” The ‘sidewalk closed cross here’ sign is MUTCD R9-11a, which is the advance warning, used at the last available crosswalk.

SacCity Active Transportation Plan

2023/12/252024/01/12 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento is in a planning process that will lead to an active transportation plan, called Streets for People. It will replace the somewhat out of date Bicycle Master Plan and the prehistoric Pedestrian Master Plan. Phase 1 involved gathering input and specifics from the community, and resulted in an existing conditions report.

I have, to be honest, not participated in this process nor posted anything about it. Well, here you go! I’ll look more closely, and no doubt have things to say. Soon, I hope.

SacCity work zone comments

2023/12/25 Dan Allison1 Comment

I developed comments on the Draft Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events, and submitted them to the city, attached if you wish to take a look. There is a roundtable meeting for stakeholders on January 9, and a community meeting later in the month, possibly January 24.

PROWAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), released in August 2023, has the force of law, whereas MUTCD and CA-MUTCD are advisory, so relevant sections of PROWAG must be referenced in the work zone guidance.

Signing

PROWAG Chapter 3 says: [R303.2 Signs: Signs identifying alternate pedestrian access routes shall be provided in advance of decision points and shall comply with R410. Proximity actuated audible signs or other non-visual means within the public right-of-way of conveying the information that identifies the alternate pedestrian access route shall also be provided.]

The draft guideline says: ‘Proposed design and placement of the temporary traffic control signs, devices, and roadway markings must follow the most recent edition of the CA MUTCD.’

The draft guidelines must make clear that CA-MUTCD/MUTCD signs as shown on the diagrams must be used. This is a common failing of construction zone signing. Companies, and the city, use whatever similar signs happen to be on hand. They use roadway construction signs, and paper signs that melt in the rain and blow away in the wind. Note: I submitted a comment to FHWA for the MUTCD revision that these signs should be construction orange, as they are temporary construction closures, not permanent. They didn’t listen.

Barriers

MUTCD text and figures show barriers in crosshatched orange. Unfortunately, neither MUTCD nor PROWAG show details of what that barrier should look like. It is common in construction projects to use chain link fence or roadway construction barriers on sidewalks, but these do not meet the requirements for detectability by persons using canes. Though PROWAG does not specifically address barriers (unfortunately), it does have the text: R303.6.1 Top: The top of the top detectable edging shall be no lower than 32 inches (815 mm) above the walking surface and be free of sharp or abrasive surfaces, and R303.6.2 Bottom: The bottom of the bottom detectable edging shall be 2 inches (51 mm) maximum above the walking surface.

There are two diagrams that I’ve used before, left and center. Right is a commercial product (though note is is only compliant if the props are away from the walker, otherwise they are a trip hazard). This model has been used in several places in Sacramento, but they tend to fall down in wind, so may not be the best. The channelizer in center is often used as a barricade at crosswalks, and I believe this use is compliant, and they don’t fall down in wind. The draft guidelines must include some sort of diagram, otherwise, companies will use whatever is on hand, and whatever a sighted person thinks is sufficient.

The left diagram is from Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act in Work Zones: A Practitioner’s Guide (https://workzonesafety.org/publication/applying-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-in-work-zones-a-practitioner-guide/), and the center diagram is from Work Zone Pedestrian and Bicycle Guidance (https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and-support/technical-guidance-documents/traffic-engineering/WZ_Ped_Bike_Guide.pdf).

Diagrams

The sidewalk diagram in the new 2023 MUTCD Figure 6P-28 is better than the 2014 CA-MUTCD Figure 6P-28 because it makes clear that ramps from sidewalk level street level are necessary for a diversion. That diagram is below, and should replace the one in the draft guidelines. Figure 6P-29 is the same in both.

Yolo 80 and managed lanes

2023/12/17 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

These are my posts on Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project, or related and relevant. The category ‘managed lanes‘ will surface most of these posts, and future ones if there are any. My main purpose is to inform the public so we will be better informed for the next project (and there will be a next project). The only thing that might stop the Yolo 80 project is a lawsuit or lack of funds. Public opinion will not stop it.

I now will get back to other issues that I’ve been neglecting while focused on Yolo 80 and managed lanes.

all-lanes tolling (freeways are not free)

2023/12/172026/02/24 Dan Allison2 Comments

All-lanes tolling means that all lanes of a freeway or bridge are tolled, or priced. Freeways and bridges are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, even if they are not way over budget as most bridges and many freeways are. Gas tax or road charge (road charge) will never be enough to pay for these infrastructure projects and maintenance. Therefore, more than half of the cost is shifted onto taxpayers who use less of these facilities, or don’t use them at all. In the future, either more and more taxpayer funds will go to keeping these facilities in state of good repair, or they will deteriorate, which is already happening in many places. The solution is to have the users of such facilities pay the full price of such facilities.

Caltrans approach to transportation is to continually build more and to under-maintain what they already have. Anyone who says the era of big, expensive bridge and freeway projects is at an end doesn’t know Caltrans. Caltrans is like the heroin addict who needs ‘just one more hit, and then I’ll quit’. The only solution is to have Caltrans go ‘cold turkey’, ceasing all freeway expansions and focusing on maintenance. Of course most Caltrans engineers would be suddenly superfluous, and that it the real issue, that freeway and bridge building is just an employment program for engineers, having little to do with meeting the needs of the traveling public.

road charge

2023/12/16 Dan Allison2 Comments

A road charge is a per mile charge for operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. It is intended to be a replacement for the gas tax, as gas tax revenues decline with the shift to electric motor vehicles (CalMatters: California gas tax revenue will drop by $6 billion, threatening roads). The state website is California Road Charge.

Road charge is not a tolling system. It charges per mile driven, no matter what the classification of roads (freeway, arterial, collector, local). The California gas tax funds maintenance of mostly large infrastructure, bridges and freeways, but to a lesser degree surface arterials, collectors and local roads. In every place in California, the gas tax, as well as motor vehicle fees, pays for only about half of the cost of roadways. The rest is paid for at the county and city level, by all taxpayers regardless of how much they drive, or even if they drive. As such, transportation funding is in part a subsidy to motor vehicle drivers by people who don’t drive. The same is true at the federal level, where gas tax accounts for less than half of the highway trust fund. The inflation adjusted yield of federal gas tax has been declining since 1994.

A road charge, which drivers pay when they actually use the roadways, is an equitable system because every driver can choose, to some degree, to drive more or less. Though many low income people live in locations where access to jobs and other destinations is difficult without a car, there is always some choice involved. That doesn’t mean there are no equity implications, but a road charge is definitely more equitable than the gas tax because high income people can afford higher gas mileage or electric vehicles, whereas low income people cannot.

Many road charge proposals charge all vehicles the same per-mile rate. This is not equitable. The damage to pavement, and the pollution generated by tire and brake wear, is directly related to the weight of the vehicle. Big rig trucks cause many times more damage to roadways, and produce many time more tire and brake dust, than passenger vehicles. And large SUVs, so popular these days, also produce much more roadway wear and tear and tire and brake dust. And of course since electric vehicles weight considerably more than fossil fuel vehicles, they also produce more. Therefore, road charges should be ‘weighted’ by the weight of the vehicle. This information is available for every vehicle, as it is required when registering; yes, people can modify to create heavier weight, but the initial weight is close enough. Caltrans claims that all vehicles under 10,000 lbs GVW cause the same amount of road damage, even the elephantine electric Hummer, but this doesn’t pass the smell test. The standard calculation is that road wear goes up as the square (conservatively; fourth power is well documented for heavy trucks) of the weight. So the Hummer (9500 lbs) causes about 100 times the damage of a Prius (3000 lbs). Even at the conservative second power, it causes 10 times as much damage. Heavier vehicles of course also require that bridges be built for heavier loads, increasing their built cost as well as maintenance.

California has carried out one road charge pilot, a demonstration for different charging mechanisms, and is soon to start another pilot. It is hard to say when a road change might be implemented across the state. It has a lot of opposition from drivers who think the roadways should be free and that others should pay instead, or that gas tax covers infrastructure needs, which is only partially does.

San Diego County (SANDAG MPO) was slated to start a road charge for that county, but the board chickened out and removed it from the regional transportation plan draft. However, it is unlikely the plan will be accepted by the state unless it is either returned, or a viable alternative is proposed (KPBS: SANDAG board nixes ‘road usage charge’ from transportation plan).

It is a universal truth that drivers don’t want to pay the true cost of their driving. An appropriately designed road charge comes closer to the true cost than anything else.

A reminder: A road change is different from tolling/pricing. The road charge applies to all roadways at all times. Tolling applies to high cost infrastructure such as bridges and freeways, and may vary with time or other criteria.

Yolo 80 thoughts

2023/12/16 Dan Allison1 Comment

I often take Capitol Corridor to and from the bay area, and sometimes back from Davis (riding my bike there, usually). My observation is that I-80 is indeed congested at times, never more so than on Friday afternoons with traffic heading to Lake Tahoe area, but to some degree at AM and PM commute times. And of course when there are crashes that slow or stop traffic, which seems to happen pretty regularly. Though transportation agencies and most drivers see this section of I-80 as a bottleneck, and want the congestion solved, I see this section as a control valve on the whole system between the bay area and Nevada. Some people will make a choice to travel at a different time, or to avoid the trip completely, or to use other modes of travel. But many will just sit in traffic and cuss the government for allowing congestion. As the say goes, “You are not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic”. In that sense, the three lanes each way segment of I-80 through Yolo County serves as the pressure valve on the cooker of motor vehicle traffic. If the bottleneck is removed, traffic will expand to fill the available space, just as the steam does when I turn the valve to release my pressure cooker. Caltrans does not deny that the project will induce more VMT, so it has a list of mitigations for that induced VMT.

Earlier posts on Yolo and related managed lanes issues: Tolling for I-80 managed lanes, no HOV lanes, Yolo 80 teach-in. For existing and future posts, see category ‘managed lanes‘. I’ll have more to say about managed lanes.

There are more or less two views on the Yolo 80 project: Alan Hirsch/Yolo Mobility (and others) believe that we should not expand the freeway or remove the bottleneck. Instead we should better fund transit and rail to provide an alternative to freeway travel. The others, such as YoloTD and Caltrans, believe that expanding transit and rail is important, but we can only fund that with the income from managed lanes. They also want to ‘solve’ the ‘congestion problem’.

HOV lanes should be removed from consideration, as they do not work. Alternatives 2 and 7 in the draft EIR include HOV lanes. I don’t support alternative 6 to add a transit only lane (part-time of full-time) because under this scenario, no source of sufficient funding to run frequent bus service is available, and if no frequent service, a bus lane is a waste of space, whether it is a new lane or an existing lane. This is not to discount the value of transit lanes, but to say they must make sense under current or near term service plans. Alternatives 3 and 4 add HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, 3 is 2+ occupants, and 4 is 3+ occupants. I don’t know enough to distinguish between these, though I do know that 2+ is common in the bay area and 3+ is common in southern California. However, I don’t think that HOT lanes are the best tolling solution because they allow vehicles with the requisite occupants to avoid tolls completely. They do have some congestion reduction benefits and some VMT reduction benefits, but the research available indicates they don’t have significant benefits, and there are equity implications since it may be mostly higher income commuters and travelers that can arrange for higher occupancy over long distances.

If the corridor is to be widened at all, I believe alternative 5, express lane tolling, is best. It should be designed so that every vehicle (except transit) pays for every trip. There would be discounts for lower income people, probably using the CalFresh or other program discount of 50%. There would be discounts for the number of occupants for users of the FasTrak Flex transponder that can be set to 1, 2, or 3+ occupants. Caltrans is also exploring technology that would allow sensing of number of occupants without this particular transponder. The could be and probably should be discounts for travel during non-congested times when all lanes of the freeway are mostly free-flowing. But every vehicle should be paying something at all times. There is a clear equity advantage to express lane tolling in that all users are paying into the system so that tolls per use can be set lower. People talking about Yolo 80 tolling, including those opposed to any tolling at all, have bandied about charges of $10 to $40, but I believe that express lane tolling would set full price tolling at no more than $5, and likely less. A detailed operations and charges plan would await creation of the tolling authority, so nothing is known for certain about tolls at this time. I have not been able to find any projection of tolls in Caltrans or YoloTD documents, though certainly it may exist.

FasTrak Flex with occupany switch (from VTA); different agencies use different models

My preferred alternative is 1, no build. I want the Yolo bottleneck to remain a bottleneck so that it sets a ceiling on VMT in the entire I-80 corridor from Nevada to San Francisco. We don’t need, now or ever, more motor vehicle capacity. We need travel mode alternatives. The best alternative, I believe, is higher frequency for Capitol Corridor between Roseville and San Jose. Other actions such as better bus service, both local and regional, better walking and bicycling facilities, e-bike subsidies, and effective bike share systems are all part of the solution. More lanes, of whatever type, is not the solution.

bike share model for Sacramento

2023/12/15 Dan Allison3 Comments

I was recently asked what model for bike share could work in the Sacramento region, given the recent pull-out of Lime, and the small fleet offered by Bird.

The current situation is:

SACOG no longer wants to be involved in bike share
it is not clear whether Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District wants to be involved
private bike share companies have pulled out of Sacramento twice now, without notice to the permitting agencies nor users
privately owned and operated bike share systems are struggling in many cities, and they have either ended or cut back
City of Sacramento does not want to be involved in managing bike share beyond issuing permits; it isn’t clear whether West Sacramento wants to
Davis, under a partnership between UC Davis and the City of Davis, has a bike share system operated by Spin, and was not part of the SACOG program before it ended
when the system was in operation, it covered only parts of Sacramento and West Sacramento, excluding many lower income neighborhoods
discount programs offered by Lime, and still by Bird, are important, but are meaningless if bikes are not available in low income neighborhoods

It is clear that the privately owned and operated model is not working, and will not work, for Sacramento and West Sacramento. I believe that bike share is an integral part of our transportation system, and it is the responsibility of the transportation agencies to ensure that there is viable bike share in urban areas. So what model might work? Please understand that I do not have special expertise in bike share programs, beyond having used the local ones extensively, used systems in several other cities, and in fact was a primary enabler of the SoBi and initial JUMP systems by rebalancing bikes when the companies were understaffed to do so. I encourage you to look at NACTO’s Bike Share and Shared Micromobility Initiative and Shared Micromobility in 2022 to educate yourself about bike share.

Note: I am not addressing scooter share. My observation of scooter share is that it mostly replaces walking trips, and therefore has no VMT reduction value. Bike share seems to be used mostly to replace motor vehicle trips. Therefore bike share is the important issue to be solved.

My model

Bike share would be publicly owned, including bikes, bike parking areas and racks, and docks or charging infrastructure if that turns out to be the system model.
Bike share would be privately operated under contract with a public agency. The private company would be required to give a minimum of 60 days notice to terminate the operation.
The best public entity to own and contract the system in the Sacramento region is SacRT. I don’t say this because SacRT has any expertise or competence in bike share, but because they are the one regional entity that covers nearly all of Sacramento County, and might be interested, and through MOU, could cover West Sacramento as well (Yolobus is likely to eventually be annexed by SacRT, but the two agencies already cooperate). There is a nexus between transit and bike share, because bike share fulfills the first mile/last mile needs of many riders. Bike share locations would not be limited to transit stops, but that would be one of the criteria for system design and bike locations.
SacRT, or other entity, would contract with a private company with experience in bike share management to operate the system. It is also possible that a nonprofit might be created to operate the system, as this has been a successful model in several cities, particularly as private systems failed.
The system would be operated in areas with enough residential or commercial activity to justify productive and profitable (for the private operator) operation. Since there are such areas outside of the cities in the county, and since there are also areas within the cities that are too low density to justify bike share, it does not make sense for operations to be contracted by the cities. Criteria for successful areas would have to be developed, and adjusted as appropriate.
There is a role for the cities, and the counties, to fund bike share infrastructure. Though grants are a possibility, there are no existing and reliable sources of funding for the publicly owned system. Either the cities and counties fund it, or it doesn’t happen. Once the system is in operation, there may be enough ‘profit’ to maintain and upgrade the system, so that the cities and counties might not have to supply ongoing funding. Or it may require ongoing subsidy.
The private operator would be subsidized by an amount subject to negotiation, for perhaps two years, but the system should not need ongoing subsidy. The initial subsidy would cover the start up period during which the system would rebuild knowledge and support among the users. The withdrawal of LIme, and JUMP/Uber before that, has certainly damaged the reputation of bike share, and the new system will have to rebuild trust.

There are three types of bike share systems:

Docked: Bike must be returned to a dock after use. Docks are provided in areas of higher use.
Undocked: Bikes can be parked anywhere, though them must be locked to a rack or within a designation parking area.
Hybrid: Bike may be returned to a dock or hub, or parked elsewhere. JUMP had a highly successful hybrid system, where users were rewarded for returning bikes to a charging hub, but could park elsewhere. The bay area Bay Wheels is hybrid for pedal assist e-bikes (not regular bikes) in that they can be parked away from docks for a small fee.

There are plenty of other issues to resolve before we get to which type of system, but I provided that for people who will ask. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, and its proponents and detractors.

Your thoughts? Have at it.

Getting Around Sacramento

by foot, bicycle, and public transit (car-free!)

Author: Dan Allison