Category: Active Transportation

a trip to San Francisco

Dan Allison1 Comment

My last major trip for the Week Without Driving was a trip to San Francisco.

Friday, I walked from a transportation safety meeting to Sacramento Valley Station, and caught Capitol Corridor train to Richmond, then transferred to BART into San Francisco Embarcadero Station, and walked to Trader Joe’s and then to the Hostelling International hostel near Union Square. That evening I walked to San Francisco Playhouse to see The Play that Goes Wrong, only two blocks away, which is why I stay at that hostel when I’m seeing a play.

Saturday morning I walked to the Ferry Building farmers market to grab a few picnic items, then took Muni Metro N Judah light rail to 9th & Irving. From there I walked into Golden Gate Park and to Hardly Strictly Bluegrass (HSB), a three day free festival (I missed the first day due to the transportation meeting) that I’ve attended seven times since 2010 (the festival is 24 years old). I realized sitting on the grass that I really wanted a lightweight folding chair to Sunday, and other uses, so I took two Muni buses to Sports Basement in the Presidio, bought the chair, and then one bus back to Union Square area and the hostel.

Evening, I went to a contra dance in Oakland, Circle Left. Short walk to BART, BART from Powell Station to 19th St Oakland, walk to the dance center. I didn’t last the entire dance, because a hot day in the sun and dancing at the festival left me drained. Walk and BART and short walk back to the hostel.

Sunday I again took Muni Metro N Judah to 9th & Irving, and walked to the Japanese Tea Garden, my favorite part of Golden Gate Park (among many), spent some while just being, and then had Hojicha tea. From there, a walk along JFK Promenade to HSB. The promenade is a long now car-fee route in the park, one of the best outdoor spaces in the city. The day was slightly less hot, but no less sunny, so in between main stage performances, I wandered to shadier stages (six stages total). The closing act by Emmylou Harris draws the biggest crowd of the festival, and of course I joined the many dancers on the grass to the left of the stage. Everything over, I walked out of the park and caught N Judah back to Union Square to pick up my travel pack left at the hostel, then BART to Richmond.

I missed the Capitol Corridor train that I intended to catch, so had to wait for the last. For an unknown reason, this last train was scheduled for an hour later than normal. The last train is often delayed to accommodate people attending the 49er’s game, or other major sports events, but the game on Sunday was an afternoon game, so the delay made no sense. And then the train was late. The plus was that I met and talked with several people on the platform who had also attended HSB. The train got me home after midnight, and I walked back home (there is no light rail service after 11:00 PM).

I do tend to cram in as many activities as possible when I take trips to San Francisco and the Bay Area, and this weekend was no exception. A big part of what enables this is the great transit system in the Bay Area. Not perfect, but great. Could I have done all this with a car? No, because I’d have spent so much of my time looking for parking that I’d have missed other activities, and paid more for parking than I spent on the entire trip travel.

I plan almost all of the travel with the Transit App, and pay for all of my transit in the Bay Area with a Clipper Card (on my watch). Capitol Corridor travel I buy in the Amtrak app, which is now easier to use than the website.

These are my three big trips during the Week Without Driving (a trip to San Rafael, a trip to Fair Oaks). I did a lot of bicycling and walking as well. I am not a person who has to walk, bicycle and transit. I do it by choice. Though having a car would probably eat up so much of my income that I’d likely end up living in my car. That is not a joke. If you look at areas in Sacramento where unhoused people are living, you will often see high value cars. I suspect paying for those very expensive cars is what pushed many people over the edge into homelessness.

a trip to San Rafael

Dan Allison2 Comments

Dan Allison, author of this blog, took a trip to San Rafael, California, in north bay Marin County, on Monday of Week Without Driving. To be transparent, I have been car-free for over 13 years, and car-light for about 7 years before that, so a trip on bicycle and public transportation is just the way I live life, not an exploration of the challenge that people who can’t drive face. My income is lower middle income, so I have enough money to travel, at least locally. I went to San Rafael to retrieve my phone charger and battery pack that I’d left on a Marin Transit bus last Wednesday. It took three days for Marin Transit to find the item and get it to lost and found. It was entertaining, and sad, to watch the included AirTag travel around on multiple bus routes. AirTags are bluetooth, so only report when they are close to a modern iPhone, but they do keep showing up in new locations.

So, the Monday trip:

  • bicycle from home to Sacramento Valley Station
  • Capitol Corridor train from Sacramento Valley Station to Richmond Station, $22.95
  • BART from Richmond to El Cerrito del Norte, $0.85
  • Golden Gate Transit bus 580 from El Cerrito del Norte to San Rafael Transit Center, $3.50
  • bicycle to a local coffee shop, where I worked on Week Without Driving communication
  • bicycle to Sprouts Farmers Market for lunch supplies
  • bicycle to Larkspur Ferry
  • Golden Gate Larkspur Ferry to San Francisco, $7
  • bicycle to San Francisco Bay Ferry gate G1
  • San Francisco Bay Ferry to Oakland Ferry, $2.30
  • bicycle to Oakland Jack London Station
  • Capitol Corridor from Oakland to Sacramento, $24.65
  • bicycle from Sacramento Valley Station to home

All of the public transportation was using my senior Clipper Card, on my watch. Capitol Corridor train travel was pre-purchased tickets through the app. The total was $61.25, which is rather expensive for a none day trip, but is quite a bit less than I would have spent driving. At about 83 miles there, and about 105 miles back, using the IRS rate of $0.67 per mile, driving would have cost $126. Plus $17.25 for Golden Gate Bridge and Carquinez Bridge tolls. Most people think only about gas costs, or charging costs, and forget about depreciation, insurance, maintenance, parking, and tolls.

Travel time is hard to compare, since I made so many stops along the way, and did not travel by the most direct route. Looking at the simpler Sacramento to San Rafael trip, driving would be 1 hour 20 minutes, whereas I spent about 2 hours 20 minutes on public transportation.

This is a trip that I’ve taken many times, so there was very little planning involved, and in fact I changed my plans for the leg back home several times on the fly, without problems. Less familiar trips would take more planning.

A few photos from my trip are below, but many parts are missing. I’m not used to documenting my public transportation travels, and even less for selfies.

Week Without Driving: save the dates

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Week Without Driving 2024 will be held nationally, and in the Sacramento region, September 30 – October 6. Mark those dates on your calendar and prepare to participate!

The Sacramento website is https://weekwithoutdriving-sac.org/, and the hashtag for social media is #SacWWD. 

A planning committee is meeting once a week to refine details and promotion, so expect to see that showing up shortly. SacRT will be offering free rides to participants on select days.

dangerous bike signal on Broadway

Dan Allison1 Comment

Additional posts on Broadway Complete Streets are available at category ‘Broadway Complete Streets‘.

On Broadway eastbound at Land Park Drive, there is a bicycle signal face, shown below. The signal is permanently red, it never changes to green. The presence or absence of bicyclists makes no difference; it does not change from red. This is confusing both motor vehicle drivers and bicyclists. Bicyclists wait for it to change, and it never does. Drivers wonder why bicyclists are proceeded along Broadway with the green ‘car’ light when the signal clearly says that they should not be proceeding. I have seen drivers yelling at bicyclists for going when it is not their turn, and this has been reported to me by a number of people.

This issue has been reported to the city, twice by myself, and multiple times by other people. It has been this way for at least two weeks, perhaps longer. The city has decided to ignore these reports and to not fix the issue. The city is endangering bicyclists, and is in fact legally liable for knowing that a safety hazard exists and doing nothing to respond. This is criminal behavior on the part of the city. Sorry to be so blunt, but when city employees, or contractors acting on behalf of the city, ignore a known and easily solvable safety problem, that is criminal behavior. Period.

This would be so easy for the city to temporarily solve, by covering the bicycle signal face so that it is not visible. The pedestrian crossing sign over Broadway at the east side of the intersection is covered, due to the construction on the corner closing the crosswalk. Beyond a temporary fix, the city needs to determine why the bicycle signal face is not working, and make it work.

we are all just trying to get somewhere

Dan Allison2 Comments

Yesterday a local politician spoke about how adding bicycle facilities to our roadways is what got us into the pavement condition crisis, implying that if we made bicyclists ride on sidewalks, everything would be fine.

My alternate title for this post is: ‘the pernicious arrogance of car drivers’.

There is a common belief that people driving cars are doing something important, and that people walking and bicycling are not doing anything important. It is true that this attitude is most prevalent in upper income white males, but it certainly exists to some degree with others. A related idea is that if you aren’t driving, you are poor, and its your fault, a very common bias against people who use transit. Bicyclists are most likely to come in for criticism because a common view is that bicycling is just for recreation, or for kids. All of this is wrong. It is not factual, and it is arrogant.

I do not drive. I haven’t owned a car in 13 years. When I started this blog, my tag line was (and still is) ‘BY FOOT, BICYCLE, AND PUBLIC TRANSIT (CAR-FREE!)’. I get everywhere by walking, bicycling and transit. I prefer walking, but bicycling and transit are useful when I need to get somewhere faster or a longer distance. It is true that I walk for pleasure most mornings, and ride for pleasure on occasion, but nearly all of my trips are purposeful. Yesterday I walked to the Chavez Plaza farmers market for some produce, then rode my bike to a public meeting, and then walked to have a beer. Today I’m walking to a meeting, and then riding my bike to Davis for the Davis Music Fest, and then taking the Capitol Corridor train home. When I do my grocery shopping, I walk or bicycle. When I go to medical appointments, I walk or bicycle. When I travel, I take the train, often with my bicycle, and then walk or bicycle or transit at the other end.

My trips are just as important as anyone driving a car. I am just as important as anyone driving a car.

Though I don’t want to overstate the case, my trips are actually more important in several ways. I am supporting a dense urban environment (I live in the central city) and the businesses and organizations located here. I am not endangering other people by my mode of travel. I’m a respectful bicyclist who always yields to walkers, which irritates the hell out of many drivers who have to wait while I wait for someone to cross the street. My walking and bicycling trips have almost zero carbon footprint, and my transit and train trips have a very low carbon footprint. I have never injured another person while walking or bicycling (though occasionally myself). I rarely take single-purpose trips, rather I chain errands.

I worked in the suburbs for many years. Three frequent driver behaviors I observed there that irritate me:

  • People drive from their work or house to get coffee, and back again. Just for a cup of coffee. It is true that the suburbs are a coffee desert, with few coffee shops and even fewer locally owned coffee shops. There are 12 local coffee shops within walking distance of where I live, and about 30 within bicycling distance.
  • People shopping at Trader Joe’s, and coming out with a small bag of groceries to their car. The groeries could easily be carried on a bike, and in many cases by walking. People seem to think that are doing good by shopping at Trader Joe’s, or Whole Foods, or Spouts, but the carbon impact of their driving trip undoes all the good of shopping there.
  • Parents driving their kids to school, and often pickup, when they live within easy walking or bicycling distance of school. I realize that it is not safe to cross many arterials, but rather than working to make things safe, or taking the time to go with their children, parents just default to driving without thinking about it.

This list could be very long, but the point is that people driving are NOT doing something more important than people walking and bicycling.

So why do people drive? Because we have built low-density places with destinations far away, so for many people driving seems the logical solution. Did we force people to prefer driving by making everything so far apart? Yes. Are people happy with this situation? Mostly not. Is there another way? Yes! Urban areas with moderate density allow people to make many trips by walking, bicycling and transit. It is time to stop the insanity, stop investing in long distance driving and commuting, and create places where everyone making trips will be seen as equal.

RRFBs are being ignored

Dan Allison4 Comments

I was a strong supporter of RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacon), where a safer crossing of the street is intended mid-block. I worked with transportation agencies in a number of locations to get them installed, and was very happy to see them go in.

They are used where multi-use trails cross roadways, and at intersections where additional traffic calming and safety are needed, but where the transportation agency does not want to add stop signs, or is unwilling or financially unable to install a traffic signal. The cost savings of an RRFB over a traffic signal are significant, about $25K for a RRFB, and upwards of $1M for a full traffic signal.

But…

Driver behavior has rendered RRFBs untenable for protecting people walking. I have observed a number of RRFB locations over the last few months. All of them are failing. Between 25% and 50% of drivers are failing to yield to people using these crossings, bicyclists or walkers. I have seen several people almost get hit by car drivers. Some drivers are slowing but failing to stop, or yield, and some drivers are not even slowing. Apparently the attitude of many drivers is that the RRFBs are only advisory and do not require yield to people in the street. Of course the law requires yielding to people crossing the street in a crosswalk, whether there is any type of signing or signaling, or not. But drivers don’t see it that way.

So, I find myself having to withdraw support for RRFBs. I will not support them as freestanding safety improvements, not as part of project. It is sad that driver behavior has erased the benefit of a safety enhancement, but it is a fact, and driver behavior gets continuously worse, never better.

Drivers are terrorists.

photo of RRFB on J St at 17th St, Sacramento
RRFB on J St at 17th St, Sacramento

Civic Thread petition to eliminate pedestrian and cyclist fatalities

Dan Allison4 Comments

Civic Thread has posted a petition to Caltrans, SACOG, City of Sacramento, and others in the region asking for immediate action to eliminate pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. I encourage you to sign the petition, and to follow the efforts of Civic Thread and many other advocacy organization in holding government and particularly transportation agencies accountable for the traffic violence that impacts us all. As with everything that Civic Thread does, action is through an equity lens. It would be a great first step if every agency adopted the list of five commitments that Civic Thread says is required, though of course it is action and not language that will make the difference.

  1. A commitment to work collaboratively and cross-sectorally at the City, County, and regional level to prioritize a consistent focus on equity and racial justice for project planning, funding, and implementation, particularly since evidence continues to show the majority of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occur in low-income, communities of color, with Black residents disproportionately experience the highest risk of death while walking, in addition to a high risk of being killed by police in routine traffic stops.
  2. A commitment to prioritize funding mechanisms and set aside funding within the city, county, regional, and state budget for active transportation programs, Safe Routes to School, and matching funds for state and federal funding programs at the local jurisdiction level.  
  3. A commitment to thoroughly vet community proposed infrastructure recommendations and to work closely with neighborhood groups and residents to identify solutions and ideas the community supports, including road diets, speed reduction, and quick builds along High Injury Networks. 
  4. A commitment to analyze current roadway conditions, transportation design policies, and guidelines and develop a plan to address design flaws equitably and immediately. 
  5. A commitment to building a comprehensive, seamless, low-stress network of active transportation corridors that is centered on equity and prioritizes investment in low-income and environmental justice communities. 

cycletrack in West Sacramento Bridge District

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Note: I’ve added text and a photo of the approach from the north.

The City of West Sacramento has installed a section of cycletrack (a two-way Class 4 separated bikeway) on South River Road and 5th Street in the Bridge District. Apparently completed late 2023 (shows how long since I’ve ridden that way), it is part of the Riverfront Street Extension and 5th Street Widening Project.

From 15th Street (the connection to Jefferson Blvd) north to almost Mill Street, the bikeway is separated from motor vehicles by a hard curb divider. The on-street bike lane southbound still exists, but this bikeway provides a much safer alternative. The onramp to Hwy 50 east (or Business 80 as it is designated), was an extreme hazard for bicyclists due to drivers turning at high speeds. See two photos below.

South River Rd cycletrack / separated bikeway at 15th St
South River Rd cycletrack / separated bikeway at 15th St
South River Rd cycletrack / separated bikeway

From Mill Street north to Bridge Street, the cycletrack is separated by a buffer and vertical delineators (K-71). At Bridge Street and north, the roadways returns to traditional Class 2 unprotected bike lanes. Though it would have been great to extend the curb-protected cycletrack all the way north to West Capitol Avenue, at least the truly dangerous section at the freeway onramp was fixed.

To the south of 15th Street, South River Road has more traditional bike lanes, with buffers in a few locations, as it crosses the ship channel and goes through two roundabouts.

The transitions to and from the bikeway seem a little awkward as they swoop through the intersection, but are probably not unsafe. I observed several bicyclists heading westbound to 15th Street who were not following the skip green bicycle markings, but the maneuver was not unsafe. I did not observe any bicyclists at the Bridge Street intersection.

Approaching the cycletrack from the north, the southbound traditional bike lane on the west side of 5th Street transitions to the cycletrack on the east side of 5th Street at Bridge St. Though the transition does not feel safe, I think it actually is, with signals preventing inappropriate motor vehicle movements.

5th St bike lane transitioning to cycletrack approaching Bridge St
5th St bike lane transitioning to cycletrack approaching Bridge St
signs and signals for bicyclist on 5th St at Bridge St
signs and signals for bicyclist on 5th St at Bridge St

Folsom Blvd alternative

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The city has proposed a Folsom Blvd Safety Project.  See previous post on that project. I would like to present an alternative to the bicycle facilities aspect of this project, improvement of the M Street corridor. M Street, and related streets including Elvas Ave, provide an alternative route. This route is already used by hundreds of bicyclists per day, students at Sacramento State, other commuters, and recreational bicyclists accessing the American River Parkway. Folsom, on the other hand, sees very little bicycle use. This is because it feels dangerous for most bicyclists, and because it is not the most direct route for many destinations.

The lack of bicyclists does not indicate that the street does not deserve bicycle facilities. Folsom has no bicycle facilities in the section to be revised, does not feel safe for bicyclists, and is not safe for bicyclists. The classic saying is that you can’t judge the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming the river. Bicyclists deserve safety on every street.

However, since bicycle facilities are a primary feature of the project, so it is worth asking: ‘Is this the best investment of limited funds?’ I’d suggest that upgrades to the M Street corridor might be a better investment.

Neither route actually offers safe access to and through Sacramento State. M Street is a low volume, mostly low speed street, from Alhambra Blvd to Elvas Blvd, However, the section along Elvas to the Hornet Tunnel that goes under the railroad tracks, is hazardous and intimidating for bicyclists. Folsom Blvd, with this project, would provide basic bicyclist facilities from Alhambra to 65th Street. However, access to and through Sacramento State beyond 65th Street is poor. The ‘safer’ crossing of Folsom at 69th Street and Elvas Avenue is awkward, was designed for walkers and not bicyclists, and not really safe. I have observed a number of drivers blowing the red light at this crossing. After crossing Folsom, a bicyclist can jog west to Elvas Avenue, and ride that to Hornet Tunnel, though the street is very deteriorated, of widely variable width, and the entrance to the tunnel is awkward.

The map below shows both routes, M Street from Alhambra Blvd to Elvas Avenue, in orange, and Folsom Blvd from Alhambra Blvd to 65th Street. Both are of equal length. Folsom Blvd has bike lanes from Alhambra to 47th Street, and discontinuously from 49th Street to 57th Street, with nothing to the east. M Street does not have bike lanes, but is is a low volume, low speed roadway along which most bicyclists feel comfortable riding. It is a ‘low stress bikeway’. Some of the route is marked with bike sharrows. Though improvements could certainly be made to M Street, it is functional as is, as a bicycle route.

Folsom Blvd has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, and much higher speeds are routinely observed. The fatal crash was in fact due in part to egregious speed violation by a driver. The proposed project would reduce speeds somewhat due to prudent drivers, but will probably encourage passing in the center turn lane. The project would leave the posted speed limit unchanged. M Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph throughout, and speeds above 30 mph are rare. Would bicyclists rather ride on a non-bicyclist facilities roadway with 30 mph traffic, or on a buffered and un-buffered bike lane with 50 mph traffic?

Both of these routes are unacceptable because they don’t create a safe corridor all the way to Sacramento State. However, I feel that an investment in improving the M Street corridor section along Elvas would be a better investment than bicycle facilities along Folsom Blvd which end at 65th Street.

I wrote about improving the section of the M Street corridor between 62nd Street and Hornet Tunnel earlier this year: Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel. I don’t have a cost estimate for this project.

I am not saying the the Folsom Blvd Safety Project is a bad idea, just raising the question of where funds can be best invested to improve safety and comfort for bicyclists.

Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel

Dan Allison3 Comments

The section of Elvas Avenue between 62nd Street and Hornet Tunnel which leads to Sac State is very dangerous for bicyclists. Bicyclists have to transition across four lanes of traffic (three travel lanes and a center turn lane), without any protection whatsoever. The pavement quality is low, particularly on the east side where the ‘bike lane’ (not a real bike lane) is. Despite this, it is a high-use bicycle route from Sacramento to Sac State and the American River Parkway trail. M Street, this section of Elvas, and the Hornet Tunnel serve as a bicycle boulevard (though not designated) between the central city, Sac State, and beyond.

Since the day I arrived in Sacramento and rode my bike to work in the eastern suburbs, I have known that this section needs to be fixed. It took me 12 years to get around to writing about it. I hope that it will take the city less to fix it. The solution presented here is not the only solution, so I encourage others to comment, point out flaws, and suggest optimal solutions.

Elvas Avenue is a high-speed, moderately high-volume roadway that acts in many ways as an expressway due primarily to the turns from Elvas Avenue to 65th Street, and from 65th Street to Elvas that encourage high speeds. The roadway is dangerous for motor vehicle drivers and passengers as well as bicyclists. North of 62nd Street, St. Francis High School (about 1100 students) suffers from traffic risk created by Elvas Avenue, so traffic calming to the south will benefit the high school as well as bicyclists. It might be appropriate to extend the separated bikeway north to the signalized crosswalk over Elvas to the school.

Read More »