Category: Active Transportation

Dangerous by Design 2019

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Smart Growth America has released its ‘Dangerous by Design 2019‘ report for 2019. Pedestrian (walker) fatalities have increased 35% over the last decade, becoming a bigger percentage of roadway fatalities, now at 16%. Sacramento (the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA) ranks 46 of 100 on the list of most dangerous areas for pedestrians, and the danger increased 4.9% from 2016 (year of the first report they did) to 2019. California ranks 16th on the list of states, and had an increase of 3.8%.

The National Complete Streets Coalition is part of Smart Growth America, so it is expected that the report emphasizes complete streets and roadway design. However, by focusing mostly on that, it misses some important issues. The report acknowledges, on page 7, that the design of vehicles, particularly the explosion of pedestrian-killer SUVs, is important, but then fails to list a significant action related to it. If these vehicles are 2-3 times more likely to cause fatalities, as research indicates, then that could explain more of the increase than many other factors.

Another issue that the report does not even mention is driver behavior. Though an increase in the number of poorly designed roadways could explain part of the overall increase in pedestrian fatalities, I doubt that it could account for all of it. Though most of our roadways are dangerous by design, we are building fewer of the most dangerous ones, and have fixed some of the worst of the worst. I will speculate, without research backing but with anecdotal and direct experience, that a precipitous decline in driver behavior is a significant cause. More pedestrians are being killed because more drivers are killing them. Yes, roadway design is responsible, and is the easier problem to solve in the long run (than human behavior), but if behavior, violation of the law, is in fact a significant contributor, we miss the boat by only talking about design.

Though ultimately, the redesign of our roadways is the best solution, in the meanwhile we need to prevent fatalities, and addressing driver behavior is part of that. This is not a minor issue. This morning, while using a clearly marked crosswalk, I was nearly hit by a driver who passed through the crosswalk without even slowing down. If I had not jumped back, I would not be here writing this post right now.

The report uses the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) as data for the number of people walking, and says there has actually been a decline in walking over four years and a slight increase over ten years. However, the NHTS only counts commute trips, and assigns all commute trips to the category of the longest leg. Therefore, a transit and walking commute would be classified as transit only. Data about overall walking rates is lacking, and Smart Growth America can hardly be blamed for that. California performed one broad-based survey in 2013, and the results varied significantly from the NHTS data. I realize that Smart Growth America is a nonprofit with limited resources, but at least a small sample analysis using other sources of data would really help illuminate the cause of the increase in fatalities. We can’t adequately assign fatality rates if we don’t really know the rate of walking. It would seem to me that one of the key actions at the federal, state and local level would be better pedestrian trip data, but that does not show up in the report.

As I have said many, many times, here and other places, the model complete streets policies that Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition promote do not give sufficient weight to the frequency of safe crossings. As a result, most local policies fail to address this issue at all. If we end up with a national policy that continues this weakness, we won’t really be solving the problem. So I can’t, at this time, support the recommendation, on page 7, for a national complete streets policy. NCSC needs to clean up its act before asking others to clean up their act.

Walkable Sacramento #10: schools

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Schools, and the children that attend them, deserve special consideration. The design of our streets and societal trends towards cars-only have left students trapped in the back seats of their parents cars, or for some, trapped in the front seat of their own car once they get their license. The leading cause of death for children 4-14 (some statistics say 1 to 19) is motor vehicle crashes, and most of those occur in their own parent’s vehicles. Better to get students out of vehicles, and vehicles away from schools so that once again children feel safe and welcomed to walk and bicycle (and skateboard and scooter).

Policies:

  • Schools will never be sited unless all neighborhood students can safely walk to school. Though schools have often been sited in the past based only on economics or developer preference, the city must insist that walkability is the primary criteria.
  • Existing schools where neighborhood students cannot safely walk to school will be prioritized for walking improvements, with low-income schools at the highest priority. 
  • The city will fund pedestrian education in every school at one grade level. Additional education and other transportation modes will be the responsibility of the school districts. 
  • The city will proactively work with school districts to consider reduced speed limits on neighborhood streets and in school zones, and closed, restricted or one-way school-adjacent streets during arrival and dismissal times. State law allows cities and counties to set school zone speeds at 20 mph or 15 mph, but no place is the Sacramento region has yet done so. Many places in Europe and a few in the United States close school streets during arrival and dismissal, or for the whole school day (addressing air quality concerns as well as safety concerns). When drivers do not behave, they do not belong around schools, and we must keep them away.

Walkable Sacramento #9: parking

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Parking can either support or handicap walking, depending on where it is placed and how it is managed. Parked cars do provide a barrier between walkers and cars, and where a sidewalk buffer is not possible, or not desirable such as in busy retail areas, parked cars are a good. But the imagined need to preserve parking can also harm walkers when it is used to prevent crosswalk daylighting and curb extensions, or to argue against sidewalk widening. Where is works, parking is a good thing, where it does not work, it is a bad thing.

Policies:

  • Parking in such a way as to block a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, will be a top priority of parking enforcement, and will be added to the 311 app and website, and recognized by 311 operators.
  • Since surface parking creates more distance between walkable destinations, parking minimums will be eliminated everywhere, parking maximums may be established, and the overall size of surface parking lots will be strictly limited. Big box stores and malls, where they exist, will break up expanses of parking with walkable safe routes, including continuous safe paths from streets to entrances for people who walk. 
  • Though on-street parking (parallel, diagonal, and separated) may create a safer and more comfortable environment for walking and bicycling, preservation of existing parking will never be prioritized over installing or widening sidewalks where needed. 
  • Divert parking revenues beyond those necessary to maintain the program to the neighborhoods from which the income came (Shoup, Parking Benefits District), expended solely on walking infrastructure improvement within 1000 feet of the meter. Lower income areas without meters would be funded at the same level with other funding. 

Walkable Sacramento #8: enforcement

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Street redesign is the ultimate solution to the epidemic of serious injury and fatality of walkers, and intimidation of walkers by drivers, however, in the interim, while streets are being redesigned, enforcement can save lives and increase walking.

There are real equity issues with the enforcement of vehicle codes violations. Given that I do not have a way of automating enforcement of failure to yield, that must happen with traffic stops. These stops should be closely monitored to reveal and correct bias.

  • Enforcement will be focused on the three violations that most affect walker safety, in order of priority:
    1. Recognizing that failure to yield to pedestrians both leads to higher serious injuries and driver intimidation of walkers, failure to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk (CVC 21950) will be the top traffic enforcement priority for the police department. The goal will be elimination of this violation within three years.
    2. Recognizing that speed directly affects the likelihood of serious injury and fatality, make speed enforcement (CVC 22348) will be the second priority. Use automated speed enforcement whenever possible to eliminate the proven racial and income bias in enforcement.

Walkable Sacramento #7: barriers

Dan Allison2 Comments

There are two major kinds of barriers to walking in the city, natural barriers such as the two rivers, and constructed barriers such as the freeways. Fixing either kind will be quite expensive. I am in favor of pedestrian and bicyclist bridges, perhaps with transit if appropriate, but not motor vehicles. Though a small increase in the number of road crossings is needed, most of these are outside the city in the county.

Policies:

  • Construct safe pedestrian and bicyclist over-crossings of freeways, and rail lines without street-level crossings, at an interval of no less than one-quarter mile, to improve circulation. Work with Caltrans, railroads, and the legislature to ensure that the expense is shared and not the sole responsibility of city taxpayers. Complete within ten years. 
  • Consider safe pedestrian and bicyclist crossings of the rivers (Sacramento and American) at an interval of no less than one-half mile, to improve circulation. Complete within 15 years.
R Street bike bridge over I-5

Walkable Sacramento #6: freeway ramps

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Freeway on-ramps and off-ramps are designed solely for the benefit of motor vehicle drivers, with the objective being to allow drivers the maximum possible speed, both entering and exiting freeways. Drivers, whenever possible, accelerate to freeways speeds before even reaching the on-ramp, and often do not decelerate for one or two blocks after leaving the freeway. These are pedestrian killers, and they must be modified. Motor vehicles should either be required to make a 90 degree turn, or stop, before entering and exiting ramps. The ramps allow for the acceleration and deceleration necessary, that does not need to happen on the streets.

You might think that this will require approval from Caltrans, but Caltrans has washed their hands of the freeways over-crossings and under-crossings, except where the intersecting road is also a state highway. These fixes may be quite expensive, as is true of most projects that correct for previous mis-design, but they need to take place.

Policies:

  • All freeway on-ramps and off-ramps will be redesigned to require a complete stop and/or right-angle turn entering or exiting freeways. Pedestrian facilities will be redesigned so that pedestrians receive priority and full safety protection at all on-ramps and off-ramps. Complete within ten years.
  • At completion of the redesign, all pedestrian crossing prohibition at on-ramps and off-ramps, and the intersections associated with the ramps, will be removed. 
I-80 Business off-ramp at N Street; no crossing

Walkable Sacramento #5: speed

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This one is pretty simple, but of utmost importance. Speed kills, but the increasing share of fatalities is walkers. The chart explains why.

Though the primary beneficiaries are walkers, bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers will benefit as well. As with many policies and actions related to walking, this is an interim measure to keep people alive until roadways are redesigned. Roadways design should enforce a desired speed, not allow and encourage a higher speed.

Policies:

  • Any roadway with a history of crashes resulting in serious injury or fatality will have the speed limit reduced by 5 mph until this pattern ceases, and each such crash will result in further reduction, but not below 15 mph. 
  • Speed limits on all roadways will be set at the desired speed, not the design speed and not the actual speed. It will be illegal to consider the 85% criteria for setting speeds.
  • Implement a city-wide base speed of 20 mph, and allow higher speed limits only where the roadway design ensures safety at higher speeds. Safety means no fatalities or serious injuries. The sign below is from the UK (United Kingdom), but many places around the world have now made 20 mph (32 kph) the baseline speed.

root heaves on the river parkway

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The photo above is a root heave on the American River Parkway path, west of Watt Avenue. This root heave started developing more than a year ago, and has of course gotten worse. Assuming that this will be a rainy winter, come spring the heaving will accelerate greatly.

The heave has been decorated by users at least twice, in an effort to alert other bicyclists to the hazard. But at night, the heave is invisible. The vertical displacement is about 2.5 inches, enough to make a bicyclist hitting it at speed lose control, or to throw them off their bike. It could result in serious injury or even death.

I have reported this issue to Sacramento Regional Parks via email, via phone calls, via Twitter, and directly to park rangers. Nothing has been done. More than a year, and it has only gotten worse.

This is just the worst heave, so far as I know, for the sections I ride. There are many more with less displacement. All have been marked by users in some way, indicating that users care much more about their safety than does Sacramento Regional Parks.

I will therefore suggest that Sac Regional Parks is incapable of maintaining this key part of the transportation network. Though they do from time to tine repave portions of the parkway, they have done nothing significant in the last three years. Measure A allocates $1 million of transportation funds per year to the parkway, but it has never been clear how these funds are being spent and many in the bicycle community question whether it is ending up ‘on the ground’ in path maintenance, or going elsewhere.

The responsibility for the parkway path needs to be transferred to the county department of transportation (SacDOT). It is not because they are a great agency, either, and anyone who drives or rides the streets in the county know how far behind the county is falling in maintaining their roads. The nevertheless, the parkway path is part of the transportation system, and needs to be considered as part of the system.

Walkable Sacramento #4: sidewalks

Dan Allison3 Comments

For a series on walkability, you might think sidewalks would come first, not later. The reason they are not first in the series is that sidewalks, relative to other issues, are in decent shape. Yes, vast areas are missing sidewalks, and in many areas that have them, they are not well maintained. But looking at the whole issue of walking, it is crossing roadways that is most dangerous and unpleasant, not walking along roadways.

I do not believe that low speed, low volume residential streets need sidewalks. It is OK that some have them, and it is OK to require them in new developments (to the degree that it is OK to have new developments, which is to say, this should be irrelevant because there should be no new developments). But to build sidewalks on quiet streets that do not have them is not the best use of funds.

The city has a lot of semi-rural areas without sidewalks. Do they not deserve sidewalks? Where sidewalks would provide a route to key amenities such as grocery stores and schools, sidewalks should be provided, or at least paved asphalt paths adjacent to roadways. Too many people die walking on the shoulders of rural and semi-rural roads, so shoulders are not a solution, there must be either sidewalks or separated paths.

The most important point of all about sidewalks is the first bullet, that it is the responsibility of the city to maintain sidewalks. It is irrational to propose that roadways are maintained by the city, but sidewalks are not. If this belief and legal fabrication persists, Sacramento can never be a walkable city.

  • Recognizing that sidewalks are an integral part of the transportation network, sidewalk repair will be the responsibility of the city and not of property owners, except where trees owned by property owners, or disturbance, change or widening is initiated by the property owner.
  • All streets with an ADT over 5000 will have continuous sidewalks of no less than four feet clear path, within five years.
  • All streets with an ADT over 10,000 will have a continuous sidewalk of not less than six feet clear width, within two years.
  • All streets with an ADT over 20,000 will have a continuous sidewalk of not less than six feet clear width, with a buffer of not less than six feet, within six years. Parallel multi-use paths can be used to meet this requirement.
  • Utility poles and other obstructions will not restrict sidewalk width below the minimums above, and where these exist, will either be removed or sidewalks widened. The expense will be borne by the utilities, not city taxpayers.
  • All sidewalks will be maintained in a state of good repair by the city. Any cracks with a vertical displacement of more than one inch will be fixed within two months. The city will evaluate and implement flexible sidewalks for locations with ongoing tree root heaving issues.
  • Timely leaf removal from sidewalks will be the responsibility of the property owner, except for sidewalks with a daily use of over 5000, which will be the responsibility of the city. 
  • All development which requires new sidewalks (greenfield development) will fund a maintenance fund so that existing city residents are not financially responsible for sidewalk maintenance on new sidewalks. 
  • Sidewalks will be continuous across alleyways, in concrete and not asphalt. Every alleyway that is reconstructed or repaved will have this implemented.

Walkable Sacramento #3: pedestrian signals

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Following on to the previous post on crosswalks, policies are needed for pedestrian signals, which are intended to provide some additional protection for pedestrians crossing at signalized intersections. I am not in favor of creating signalized intersections where they don’t exist (in fact, many should be considered for removal), but where they do exist, the pedestrian signals need to be done right.

It should be noted that the NCUTCD (National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) just today decided to not recommend that the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) require that signalized intersections have pedestrian signals. I’m not sure how I feel about this: sometimes I think that we over-sign and over-signalize roadways, causing lack of attention, but at the same time, such a limitation would never be accepted if it had to do with motor vehicle movement.

Pedestrian activation buttons are often called ‘beg buttons’ because the walker must ‘beg’ permission to cross by pressing the button and then waiting an uncertain length of time. Sometimes forever, because some buttons have failed or been disconnected, and no change has been made to the signal logic to address this. Motor vehicle drivers are not required to take any such action, they are detected in various ways, or the signal is set to change automatically without detection.

Some European cities have installed automatic pedestrian detection, which changes the signal based on the presence of a walker. I have heard that some of the detectors can even distinguish people in wheelchairs, with walkers and canes, or elderly, and adjust the cycle to accommodate. I’m not aware of any of these in the United States, but would be happy to hear about them if there are.

The policies are:

  • No crossing will require the pressing of a pedestrian button unless it is a roadway over over 30,000 ADT with a crossing frequency of less than 100 pedestrians per day, or is a mid-block crossing. 
  • All pedestrian buttons will be labeled to clearly indicate whether they have any effect on the signal cycle. Buttons may serve only the purpose of:
    • triggering infrequent crossings, as above, or
    • triggering audible information, or
    • lengthening the crossing time for walkers requiring a longer time, often seniors and the disabled
  • Existing buttons will be removed unless they provide one one of the functions above, and are signed to indicate their function. Removal of others within three years.
  • All pedestrian signals will have a countdown function, unless there is a crossing frequency of less than 50 pedestrians per day, within five years. 
  • Signals will normally have a cycle of 60 seconds or less in order to reduce pedestrian wait times. Revision within two years.
from Dhiru Thadani