SacCity ADA ramps and Central City Mobility

2023/05/042023/06/30 Dan Allison1 Comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #3.

I now know why all the of initial ADA ramp projects were on 21st Street. That is the first street being repaved as part of the Central City Mobility Project. 21st has been identified in the project for separated bikeways. Since there is a bus route on 21st (SacRT Route 62), I assume that the bus stops will be on the right hand side northbound, and the bikeway on the left hand side. The design shown on the project webpage shows a parking-protected separated bikeway on the left, along with a buffer zone (to protect against car doors opening). This seems to be the standard that the city has adopted, and side so far the city is placing separated bikeways only on roadways that also have bus service, presumably this design will be used in every case.

Another diagram indicates that there will be vertical delineators (K-71) in the buffers, but there are no details about the frequency. There’s are the delineators that are run over and destroyed by vehicle drivers on a regular basis, and these will suffer the same fate. The larger diameter delineators (NOT bollards, the city is incorrect in calling vertical plastic a bollard; bollards are made of metal or concrete, not plastic) that are now installed on part of J Street are not specified here. Though these don’t provide any more actual physical protection, they seem to raise doubts among drivers and get run over less often.

There were several curb islands along 21st Street on the left hand side. All but one have been removed. The remaining one at 21st Street and Capitol Ave may just be an oversight, but if not, it is in the middle of what is expected to be the separated bikeway.

21st St at Capitol Ave SW corner curb islands — Sac_21st-St-Capitol-Ave-SW_curb-islands

The fourteen blocks of 21st Street from W Street to H Street has been stripped down about two inches, for repaving. The restriping after paving will include the separated bikeway.

The project webpage has a diagram for the transition of a separated bikeway on the left side of 19th Street southbound to the right side of 19th Street south of W Street, which is a two-way street. However, it does not have a diagram for the transition of this 21st Street separated bikeway at the north end, where 21st Street becomes a two-way street at I Street. This is already a hazardous intersection due to the double left-turn lane from 21st Street to I Street westbound.

Separated bikeways are only as safe as their intersection treatments, and the transition from and to separated bikeways to regular bike lanes are critically important. I hope that the city has a good design for 21St Street and H Street, otherwise bicyclists will be placed in more danger than existing conditions. The solution is of course bicycle signal faces that allow bicyclists to move when other traffic is held, but the city has been reluctant to use these.

Capitol Corridor gets more TIRCP funds

2023/04/292024/03/02 Dan Allison1 Comment

Capitol Corridor has received more funds from the TIRCP (Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program) for some projects in the Sacramento region. It includes full funding of the Sacramento Valley Station transit hub, additional funds for the Sacramento-Roseville third track project, and contactless readers for Thruway buses (presumable the same readers that have been installed on the trains, which will allow direct payment for trips once the Tap2Ride pilot is complete).

https://www.capitolcorridor.org/blogs/get_on_board/capitol-corridor-awarded-42-million-from-california-state-transportation-agency

update on SacCity ADA ramps

2023/04/212024/01/21 Dan Allison1 Comment

Note: I discovered that I have often used ‘detectible’, but should have been using ‘dectectable’ for detectable warning strips.

This is Central City Mobility Project update #2.

This is an update to the update on work being done on corner ADA ramps in the Sacramento central city, apparently as part of the Central City Mobility Project.

So far as I have seen, curb extensions are not part of this project.

There are now a number of locations where the concrete ramp is being cut so that the detectable warning strip can be installed, but the curbs are not being touched. See below for an example.

Q-St & 16th-St, SW corner, ADA ramp construction

One of the corners I have been monitoring, 21st St and O St northeast corner, is complete, but with temporary patches that make the ramps useable, though ironically still blocked by folding barricades and caution tape, which absolutely does not meet ADA guidelines for contruction signing and safety. This seems to be the pattern with the city, trying to make things better, but not paying attenteion to the details. I don’t know when the asphalt will be restored and the corner opened. Maybe the contractor is waiting until all the corners are ready before patching, though that would be stupid.

21st-St & O-St, NE corner, completed corner with ADA ramps

I am still not able to make sense of the asphalt cuts that are being done on the corners where the curb will be or has been modified. I’m guess that there was a standard cut design, implemented everywhere, no matter what the actual project.

Walking around the central city, it appear that most of the corners which did not have ADA-compliant ramps will have them when the project is done, but some may not. I don’t know what the criteria is for which corners are being done, and which are being done at a higher level of replacing the curbs and widening the ramps. Many of the existing ramps are narrow, with edging curbs, which was apparently the design at the time they were placed, but the new corners are a different design, with a sloping area between the two ramps, similar to the diagram below, from the 2020 Department of Utilities Standard Specifications: Transportation drawings, not from the 2009 Department of Public Works Street Design Standards, which contain no ADA diagrams. I think the detectable warning strip width is at least 60 inches on the new installations, which is an improvement. The 48 inch width does not allow two people to stand on the strip. Corners with new curb extensions seem to have 72 inch strips.

SacCity T-76 Curb Ramp Dual Combination Planter diagram — SacCity_T-76_CurbRampDualCombinationPlanter

SacCity intersection design

2023/04/112024/01/12 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Part of an ongoing series of posts to support better streets in the City of Sacramento during their 2023 update of Street Design Standards. New standards must be innovative, safe, and equitable, and it will take strong citizen involvement and advocacy to make them so.

This intersection design post follows on to the SacCity intersections of local streets post, addressing intersections of larger streets. See SacCity street classification for detail on types of streets (local, neighborhood, corridor).

The most important point of intersection design is that multi-lane roundabouts have absolutely no benefit for people walking or bicycling, particularly those with vision or mobility limitations. They are no more safe than regular intersections, and some research indicates they are less safe. They are just more motor vehicle infrastructure masquerading as something innovative and safe. If the city were to include a design for multi-lane roundabout, it would be a travesty.

This is also the last of the design detail posts. I realize that the posts have veered off into related issues, and the piecemeal nature of the posts makes it hard to see the overall pattern, so I will try for a summary post in the near future.

Policy

New or reconstructed intersections of neighborhood streets will generally use protected intersection design
New or reconstructed intersections of corridor streets will use prote
New and reconstructed intersections will include curb extensions, raised crosswalks or raised intersections, and/or protected intersection design
ADA ramps at intersections will always be perpendicular to the roadway, never diagonal
Daylighting for visibility will be provided at all intersections, through red curbs, curb extensions, or protected intersections; if red curbs alone are used, the offset from intersection should be at least 15 feet
Roundabouts: single-lane roundabouts will be considered for any reconstructed intersection except local streets; multi-lane roundabouts have no safety benefits and will be prohibited
Intersection corner radii will be set to ensure slow and safe turning speeds for all motor vehicles; truck and bus routes will never be more than 15 feet
Safe crosswalks will be provided at no less than every 1/8 mile in all urbanized areas; 30 mph, crosswalks must have at least pedestrian activated or automated flashing beacons; at 40 mph, crosswalks must have full signalization
Slip lanes will be removed from existing streets and not installed on new or reconstructed streets
Pedestrian crossing prohibitions will be removed from all intersections except those with freeway onramps and off ramps

Design diagrams will include:

ADA ramps, including design which prevents accumulation of water at the base of ramps
intersections of local streets
intersections of neighborhood streets with neighborhood streets or local streets
intersections of corridor streets with corridor streets, neighborhood streets, or local streets
protected intersections
modal filters/traffic diverters
single lane roundabouts
curb extensions (bulb-outs), with concrete curbs
interim curb extensions with paint/post installations

Two design diagrams for protected intersections, the first from NACTO Don’t Give Up on the Intersection: Protected Intersections, the second from Alta Design+Planning Evolution of the Protected Intersection, for protected intersections, followed by NCHRP Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, for a single-lane roundabout.

NACTO protected intersection diagram — NACTO ‘Don’t Give Up on the Intersection’ Protected Intersections diagram

Alta Design+Planning Evolution of the Protected Intersection — Alta Design+Planning ‘Evolution of the Protected Intersection’ diagram

NCHRP 'Roundabouts: An Informational Guide' diagram — NCHRP ‘Roundabouts: An Informational Guide’ diagram

this to that

2023/04/11 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I have been irritated by the Caltrans ‘Let’s Change This to That’ advertising campaign for litter pickup and highway cleanup. Certainly litter is a water quality issue, particularly when that litter is washed into the ocean. The really big problem is not the litter, however, but the roads and highways that Caltrans has designed. The highways and wide roadways seem especially adept at accumulating litter, and illegal dumping. Could it be that the highways are such horrible places that people feel compelled to litter them? The highways are overbuilt, incredibly expensive, destroyed and divided neighborhoods, inject air pollution straight into low income communities, and prevent real solutions to climate change and livability. Maybe litter is a comment on all this.

Inspired by the campaign graphics (second below is an example), I’ve created one of my own. I took a shortcut, using something that has already happened (without Caltrans cooperation), the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco which was damaged beyond repair in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. When I have the time, I’ll look for other photos to pair, of actual changes or of potential changes. I’ve seen AI transformations that I think could play well for that, but a big part of my purpose here is to call out Caltrans greenwashing.

If this idea inspires you, I’d like to see your campaign graphics for highway removal. My ‘Let’s Change This to That’ graphic is available as a webp. Don’t know how to upload other formats.

'Let's Change This to That' for Embarcadero Freeway — ‘Let’s Change This to That’ for Embarcadero Freeway

Caltrans 'Let's Change This to That' graphic — Caltrans ‘Let’s Change This to That’ graphic

update on half-measure corners

2023/04/102023/06/30 Dan Allison1 Comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #1.

There has been construction on several of the corners I had previously mentioned (half-measure corners?), with 21st Street and O Street being the most advanced. It seems that I was wrong about curb islands being put in – there is no evidence of such construction. I don’t know why the asphalt cutting implied that. When more of these are complete, I’ll post again.

What seems to be going on is simple updates to place ADA-compliant curb ramp with detectable warning strips. Of course any improvement to curb ramps helps everyone, disabled and otherwise, and I’m not criticizing that. Rather, wondering why when the city is changing these corners, they did not take the opportunity to do true curb extensions. The ADA ramp and detectable warning in place for O Street is wider, than previous ramps and strips, looks to be more than four feet rather than the prior narrow ones. If all the ramps end up wider, that will be a plus.

This work is probably part of the city’s Central City Mobility Project. The project detail mentions ‘turn wedges’. Maybe the wedges will be added later, or maybe these will be at different locations than the ones I’ve looked at. The page does not specifically mention ADA ramp improvements.

21st St & O St, northeast corner, ADA ramp construction, partially complete

I had mentioned in the previous post curb extensions being extended to serve as bus boarding areas. I am not aware of any of these in Sacramento, but San Francisco has many. Many earlier posts have mentioned bus boarding islands, but this is for a street without bike lanes (yet), which allows the bus to stop in-lane and people to board directly. Notice that the extension allows for a bus shelter without constraining the sidewalk width for walkers. This should be the standard for Sacramento for all streets with bus routes but not bike lanes.

curb extension and bus boarding extension, San Francisco, Leavenworth & Sutter

the future of downtown

2023/04/08 Dan Allison1 Comment

The Belote Lecture: “The Future of Downtowns: Developing a New Vision for America’s Urban Core” occurred on Tuesday at the Citizen Hotel, sponsored by McGeorge School of Law. Chris Morfas alerted me to the lecture by re-tweeting Greg Shill, who I’ve always wanted to meet.

Brian Schoenfisch of the City of San Diego talked about how they had activated public space downtown by closing streets, liberal implementation of temporary and permanent use for dining and recreation, and new parks. Almost all development in downtown is by-right, which was accomplished by removing regulations and doing a categorical CEQA approval for downtown infill.

Noah Arroyo of the SF Chronicle said that a lot of the homeless issue in SF was more perception that reality. He also said that the many, many layers of development review in SF make it nearly impossible to build affordable housing, or any housing.

Greg Shill of University of Iowa Law School said we need to change cities so people can walk/bike to destinations, that cities actually have a lot of control over what happens there, and that transit is going to be in crisis for at least ten years.

Cornelius Burke of California Building Industry Association said that we need housing of all types and for all income levels.

Questions from the audience largely focused on how we make up for past mistakes like urban renewal and redlining, and how citizens can ensure movement towards building cities people want. Everyone agreed that creating a more successful Downtown Sacramento requires housing, housing, housing, to replace and grow beyond that which the city and state removed during urban renewal.

I had interesting discussions with Greg Shill before and after, and with Brian Schoenfisch after. I think the real benefit of these presentations is the opportunity to bounce ideas and perspectives off of people who have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues.

As I was listening to the lecture and questions, I was also looking out over downtown from the 7th floor Metropolitan Terrace, I came back even more strongly to a key difference between successful midtown and struggling downtown. Almost all of the existing developments and opportunities downtown are quarter block, half blocks, and full blocks. The fine-grained parcels of midtown, which allow and encourage infill development, were erased by the city when they acquired the small parcels and aggregated them into large parcels. So now there are only opportunities for big developments, and big developments are even harder now than they were before. If the city really wanted to promote infill, they would break up the large parcels that are empty or hold surface parking lots into smaller parcels. Infill developers would be asking for these opportunities. Almost no one is asking for the large parcels.

Unlike many events I go to sponsored by the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, at this one I did not know anyone else. That is actually fun, meeting new people.

red light running consequences

2023/04/08 Dan Allison3 Comments

I’ve written recently about red-light-running bullies. On Wednesday morning I got to observe the logical consequences of this behavior.

red light running crash at P St & 15th St

The driver of the SUV heading south on P Street intentionally ran the red light, colliding with the passenger car that was heading west through the intersection. The red light running was well after the light had turned red. Fortunately the red light running driver slammed on his brakes and the resulting collision was low speed, or the other driver might well be dead. I might well have been dead if the other car had not been in the way, since I was using the crosswalk over 15th St, west to east, and would quite possible have been run over by the SUV driver. The driver would have been much less likely to see me than to see the other car.

Really all the red light running driver had to say is that we was in a hurry.

Perhaps most interesting is that law enforcement refused to come to the crash. The passenger car driver had called 911 shortly after the crash, as did at least one bystander. I waited 45 minutes so that I could give a statement. The passenger car driver said that he had finally gotten a text message back that no one would respond. So the crash will not get recorded anywhere. The SUV driver will not get a ticket. Apparently the 911 operator had transferred the caller to CHP, and it is CHP that refused to respond. Perhaps they were busy attending a white supremacy meeting somewhere and couldn’t be bothered. No one died – what’s the big deal?

Just more traffic violence. Nothing to see here. Let’s move along.

Getting Around Sacramento

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

Author: Dan Allison