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 It will replace the somewhat out of date Bicycle Master Plan and the prehistoric Pedestrian Master Plan.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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
HOV lanes are a failure. They save time for the drivers using them, but always less time than was asserted when the project was designed, funded, and built. And they do not save average drivers any time at all. But when added to existing freeways, they certainly cost a lot of money. And they certainly induce a lot more travel, exacerbating climate change, motor vehicle pollution, and damage to the communities through which they pass.
Hwy 50 in Sacramento
Despite this fact, the Hwy 50 project in Sacramento is adding HOV lanes in order to widen the freeway, which will induce more travel, and return traffic to previous or greater levels within a few years, or less. That means accelerated climate change, motor vehicle pollution and noise in the areas through which they travel, and for this particular project, strong discouragement to walkers and bicyclist passing under the freeway, since the undercrossings are very dark and very scary.
Hwy 50 HOV lanes (Fix50) project includes: “Adding Carpool [High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)] lanes in each direction on U.S. Highway 50 from east of Watt Avenue to Interstate 5”. HOV lanes would also be added on two on-ramps at 65th Street. I haven’t been able to locate any operational information. Will HOV be weekdays daytime, as in the Bay Area, or full time, as in Southern California?
The proposal by Yolo County Transportation Authority (YoloTD) and Caltrans to add a managed lane to the I-80 corridor between the Solano County line and just inside Sacramento County, is the hot transportation topic in the region. It would induce motor vehicle traffic (VMT) along this corridor, and by extension, would induce traffic on I-5, I-80, and US 50 within Sacramento County. I’m sure I’ll have a number of posts. Two so far are: Tolling for I-80 managed lanes and missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project.
Cool Davis sponsored a recent event in Davis, entitled A Freeway Teach-In: Davis Futures Forum on the Future of the I-80 Corridor. You can watch a video of the event on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7a07pyhLs. The first 4:45 is dead space that you can skip, and the actual presentations start at 19:00. I encourage you to watch the video. I noticed that different people had different take-aways, so you may have your own. But of course I’ll comment.
There are three items that I found most interesting.
Susan Handy (starting 32:27) of UC Davis ITS summarized and referred to her recently published book, Shifting Gears. Here primary point is that his particular project must be viewed in the context of our entire transportation system, including how we go here, where we are, and where we might go. She explained induced travel in a succinct and clear manner. She reminded that transportation and land use cannot be considered separately.
Don Mooney (starting 1:13:00), an attorney who has previously sued Caltrans, pointed out that public comments on the Draft EIR of the ‘I like it’ or ‘I hate it’ are meaningless to the process. Only substantiative comments from experts or which quote from expert sources have any effect on the decision, or provide standing for suing over the final decision.
The City of Sacramento has released the Draft Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events. The related page is Work Zone and Event Detour Policy Update. The city’s Active Transportation Commission (SacATC), many advocates in the region, as well as myself, have long requested this document, as current city practice is simply unacceptable. Starting with this post, posts related to this document and the process will be under the category ‘Work Zones‘ within City of Sacramento. Previous posts, of which there are a considerable number, are linked via the tag ‘construction zone‘ within Active Transportation.
I will read through the document and no doubt have comments to offer to you, and the city. At a glance, it looks pretty good.
One issue that I note right of the top is that the document does not mention PROWAG (Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines). Though PROWAG includes text from the federal MUTCD, and therefore the CA-MUTCD, PROWAG supercedes both MUTCDs. PROWAG no longer accepts some outmoded and unsafe designs that are in the MUTCD.
I hope that readers will review the document and comment, here and to the city. There is a comment form linked from the city’s page, though it is not structured in such as way as to comment on specific sections. You can also email Casandra Cortez, Transportation Planner, cncortez@cityofsacramento.org.
Getting Around Sacramento 