Category: Active Transportation

the long awaited death of ‘share the road’

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The ‘share the road’ sign, which has been very popular with traffic engineers, is NOT in the 2023 MUTCD. So this sign is dead, and a well deserved death. The ‘share the road’ sign was often interpreted by drivers to mean, bicyclists must share the road with motor vehicles, or in less polite terms, “get out of my way, the sign says so”. The share the road diamond shaped sign was never a legal MUTCD sign, though they were and are quite common.

W16-1P sign, which used to say ‘share the road’ now says ‘in road’, as in, bicycles in roadway. The left sign is common, the middle sign can be used, and the right sign is for temporary traffic control (TTC). Since this new sign content replaces the old with the same sign designation, I take it to mean that the old sign may no longer be used at all, and must be replaced by the new sign.

W16-1P
W16-1aP
W16-1P for TTC

The plaque is not used by itself, but with the W11-1 bicycle sign, below. Though the yellow version of the W11-1/W16-1P assembly is permitted, this sign would more likely be used at TTC in a construction zone.

MUTCD W11-1/W16-1P assembly sign 'bicycles in road'
MUTCD W11-1/W16-1P assembly sign ‘bicycles in road’

Outside of construction zones, the preferable sign would be MUTCD R9-20 ‘bikes allowed use of full lane’, below, and this sign can also be used in construction zones. This sign is similar to the old MUTCD R4-11 sign, which is no longer in the MUTCD.

MUTCD R9-20 'bicycles allowed use of full lane'
MUTCD R9-20 ‘bicycles allowed use of full lane’

Only in a few cases does the MUTCD require replacement of existing signs, but does require that the current sign be used in any new installation.

The new MUTCD recognizes the green painted bicycle lanes and green dotted bicycle lanes (often called skip marking) through conflict areas such as merges and intersections. Unfortunately, it did not drop recognition of the ‘sharrow’ shared lane marking. Though the sharrow can be legitimately used to show a bicyclist path in confusing locations, it has generally been used to bias roadways against bicyclists and to encourage motorists to fail to yield to bicyclists in the roadway. Maybe next time!

The MUTCD now has an entire chapter devoted to bicycles, Part 9: Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities. This is progress, even if less than desired.

update on SacCity new beg buttons on Alhambra

Dan Allison1 Comment

A previous post about new beg buttons on Alhambra Blvd noted that there are now beg buttons where there used to be auto-recall pedestrian crossings. I walked Alhambra this week, and noted that there are eight intersections with these new beg buttons (technically called pedestrian actuators or Accessible Pedestrian Signals APS). At auto-recall crosswalks, the pedestrian signal comes on at every signal cycle. At beg button crosswalks, the signal comes on only if requested by the pedestrian. The city has many of both types of crosswalks, but these particular locations are new. The intersections are Alhambra and: J Street, K Street, L Street, Capitol Avenue/Folsom Blvd, N Street, P Street/Stockton Blvd, Q Street, S Street. At each intersection there are eight of these new beg buttons on new posts, for a total of 64 new beg buttons.

No one seems to know who authorized this project, nor what funds were used to pay for it. I have confirmed that the project never came before the Active Transportation Commission (SacATC). All significant pedestrian projects are supposed to come before SacATC, and the fact that this one did not probably indicates that the staff in Public Works knows that this is a motor vehicle project, and not a pedestrian project. Though it is a good bet that pedestrian safety funds were used to pay for it.

Though these beg buttons are not signed with the ‘wave at’ sign R10-3j(CA) that the new ones at 21st Street and I Street, they do seem to have the same function, that they detect people, waving or not, up to about 18 inches. It seems odd that the city would have purchased these infrared detector actuators, which must be more expensive than plain touch buttons, but then did not indicate them as such. Installation of new accessible pedestrian signals is about $70K per intersection, though replacement of buttons at existing locations is only about $14K per intersection. I have been unable to find costs for passive detection systems (they all seem to require a quote process).

A reminder, if one is needed, that beg buttons have no safety benefit for people walking. They are a motor vehicle device, meant to reduce the length of signal cycles so that more cars can go faster.

The solution to this is to prohibit the use of pedestrian beg buttons throughout the city. Existing locations can be converted to the audible crossing signals that are now required by PROWAG. The relevant sections of PROWAG are R307 Pedestrian Push Buttons and Passive Pedestrian Detection and R308 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Walk Indications. Unfortunately PROWAG does not have a definition for ‘passive detection’ to specify what the detection radius or functionality is. It might be presumed this is the same at automated pedestrian detection, but not certain. Under PROWAG, new or changed locations require audible signals, but this can be met by audible/tactile push buttons or passive detection.

San Francisco is replacing the signing on their pedestrian actuator locations with the signing below.

photo of Accessible Message Only pedestrian button
Accessible Message Only pedestrian button

bike share model for Sacramento

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

diagonal ramp corners are now illegal

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

PROWAG (Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines) from the US Access Board have now been officially adopted. I’ve only begun to review them, but a few things grabbed my attention right off the bat. From PROWAG:

“At an intersection corner, one curb ramp or blended transition shall be provided for each crosswalk, or a single blended transition that spans all crosswalks at the intersection corner may be provided. Where pedestrian crossing is prohibited, curb ramps or blended transitions shall not be provided, and the pedestrian circulation path shall be either (a) separated from the roadway with landscaping or other non-prepared surface or (b) separated from the roadway by a detectable vertical edge treatment with a bottom edge 15 inches maximum above the pedestrian circulation path.”

This means that the diagonal access ramps at corners, which are common in suburban areas and even a few urban areas, are no longer legal for installation. For any alterations of curbs, sidewalk, or corner, new ramps must be two to a corner, perpendicular, or the ramp must cover the area of both sidewalks. See photo below.

photo of diagonal curb ramp, now illegal under PROWAG, installed May 2023
diagonal curb ramp, now illegal under PROWAG, installed May 2023 by Sac City

Secondly, the pedestrian prohibition signing in common use in the City of Sacramento and many other places is now illegal, because it does not meet the criteria of the bottom edge no more than 15 inches above the sidewalk. See photo below, showing a newly installed curb ramp where the ramp does not extend the full width of both crosswalks. Again, any alteration of the curb, sidewalk, or corner requires compliant design. Of course the majority of these pedestrian crossing prohibitions are unnecessary, and were installed to ease motor vehicle traffic and not to protect walkers, so most should simply be removed, and legal curb ramps installed. The one exception would be freeway on and off ramps that have not been modified to be safe under any conditions.

photo of pedestrian crossing prohibition, now illegal under PROWAG
pedestrian crossing prohibition, now illegal under PROWAG

NACTO shared micromobility report

Dan Allison1 Comment

NACTO released it’s Shared Micromobility in the U.S. and Canada 2022 ‘130 Million Trips’ report in September 2023, and the report has a summary webpage at https://nacto.org/publication/shared-micromobility-in-2022/. The report is interesting throughout, but one paragraph in particular is important for the Sacramento situation in which Lime has removed its bikes from the region, and Bird is offering few bikes. Bike share in Sacramento is more or less dead. It is clear that the model of privately owned and managed bike share does not work here. If we are to have bike share, we need a new model. I’ll have one or more posts on that shortly.

From the report (page 10):

“Shared micromobility systems that see consistent growth and equitable outcomes are typically municipally-owned or closely managed through long-term partnerships with private operators. Long-term contracts have resulted in more sustainable results for ridership and the durability of systems. The enduring viability of private sector operators remains uncertain, especially as companies with short-term permits respond to financial troubles by pulling out of cities–often abruptly–altogether. Shared bikes and e-scooters can and should be integral parts of a city’s transportation network, but that is only possible if they are consistently available and resistant to the volatility of market conditions. Partnership models where local governments have greater involvement in their shared micromobility programs generally lead to better outcomes, like more equitable pricing structures, greater investment in historically underserved communities, and ultimately, a greater likelihood of long-term viability.”

Another issue for the Sacramento area was that rental prices for bikes saw several increases during the JUMP and Uber times, and a huge jump when Lime took over. The system had become unaffordable for many former users. Lime originally offered a free for a low monthly fee rental program for people in CalFresh or similar programs, but this year changed to a half-off discount, helpful but hardly affordable. Bird has a similar half-off program. Again, from the NACTO report (page 14):

“The cost to ride a shared bike or scooter continues to rise in numerous cities, posing a threat to affordability. In a year of widespread consumer price increases–including public and private transportation modes–shared micromobility was no exception. Annual membership hikes, alongside rising e-bike surcharges, led to a 70% increase in average per-trip costs for members of station-based bike share systems from the previous year. Pay-as-you-go trips on e-bikes or e-scooters were the most expensive, with average per-trip costs more than double the typical fare of a one-way trip on public transit in the U.S. and Canada.”

I have not yet used the Spin bike share in Davis yet. I’m always in Davis with my own bike, so haven’t been motivated, but I should test it out.

pedestrian safety countermeasures

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

As a follow-on to Sac City NEW beg buttons, some background information on pedestrian pushbuttons (beg buttons). The federal government, under the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) makes available the PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. Eleven countermeasures are offered for pedestrian crossing locations:

Note that automated pedestrian detection is among the eleven. Pedestrian pushbuttons are not listed because they are not a pedestrian safety countermeasure.

Now knowing about the Vision Zero update (thanks, Matt), I will see how the city’s list of actions compares to this list of countermeasures.

where did the bikes go? partial answer

Dan Allison4 Comments

Follow-on to where did the bikes go?.

SACOG staff provided this information:

About a month ago, Lime pulled their e-bikes from the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento. They are renewing their permits in both cities with the intent of only continuing to provide e-scooters. Bird has about 30 e-bikes available to rent in the City of Sacramento.

Since the launch of bike share in the SACOG region, Sacramento and West Sacramento have had open market permitting for shared micromobility, which allows any private operator to apply for a permit. If the operator meets all local requirements, they are then able to deploy shared bikes and scooters. For more information on these cities’ permitting processes, please see the links below:

The City of Davis and UC Davis recently launched a shared micromobility system with Spin. More information on this program and their plans is available here: https://taps.ucdavis.edu/spin.

Though not obvious from this response, I have been told by several sources that SACOG is no longer involved in bike share in any way. They have washed their hands of the program that they originated. The last time bike share was on the agenda for SACOG board or committees was May 2023. Since then, nothing. No discussion, no announcements, no communication with the public.

City of Sacramento staff said that the permit that Lime has with the city specifies a number of ‘devices’ but does not require that any of them be bikes.

This loss of a transportation service again points out that bike share systems must be at least publicly owned, though they might be operated by a private company with expertise. This is the second time that a private bike share has pulled out of the city, and region, without any notice to customers or the agencies. This is unacceptable.

For my earlier take on bike share ownership and operation: public or private bike share?. Additional posts under category bike-share.

Sac City NEW beg buttons

Dan Allison8 Comments

I was out walking last evening, and was horrified to discover this:

photo of new beg button at Alhambra Blvd and L Street
new beg button at Alhambra Blvd & L St

This is a brand new beg button (technically called pedestrian pushbutton) on Alhambra Blvd in Sacramento. These have not been turned on yet, hence the cardboard over the button itself, but they are newly installed. There are a number of these along Alhambra Blvd, though I don’t yet know how many. For at least the ones I observed, these are all at locations where the pedestrian signal was previously on auto-recall, meaning the pedestrian signal changes as part of the regular signal cycle, not requiring any action on the part of the walker. Now, with these beg buttons, a person walking must ‘beg’ to cross the street by pressing the button. These buttons do not, at least in Sacramento, speed up the signal cycle. The person waiting must wait the same amount of time before a walk indicator comes on.

This is an affront to myself and anyone who walks. I’m sure the city considers this a pedestrian safety improvement, and I’d not be surprised if the city used pedestrian safety funds to install it. But it is a motor vehicle facility and improvement, it does absolutely nothing for someone walking. What is does do is allow the traffic engineer to favor motor vehicle traffic in signal timing.

The trend all over the US is to either remove such beg buttons completely, or to change them to accessible audible buttons. In a few places, they are being replaced by automated pedestrian detection, so that no action is required on the part of any walker. San Francisco has converted all of its beg buttons to accessible buttons. Other bay area cities have started to do so. I know of no place in the US where new beg buttons are being installed.

City of Sacramento Public Works is populated by fossil engineers and fossilized thinking. It has a cars-first attitude, and will continue to have that attitude until the fossils are cleared out. Put them in a museum of the 1970s, and get them out of our transportation system.

beware the leaves of December

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

It is fall in Sacramento, trees are turning, leaves are falling. It is my favorite time of year, in part due to the knowledge that it will be over soon, only memories and photos. While out walking the last two days, I have been watching little breezes create leaf-fall, more fascinating to watch than snowfall. The four ginkgo trees back of my apartment are at their peak of brilliant yellow color, and the ground is carpeted in yellow. Blocks with a variety of trees are a kaleidoscope of colors.

This morning landscape workers were out blowing leaves into piles, but they were falling faster than they were moved. As I write, it is raining lightly, which will accelerate the leaf fall.

photo of ginkgo tree and leaves next to bikeway on P St
ginkgo tree and leaves next to bikeway on P St

What is not to like? Well, what happens over the next few days. The wet leaves will start to rot, which is a natural process. But any leaf area where cars are allowed to drive will grind the leaves into fine particles, and those particles with turn into what I call leaf slime. Leaf slime is incredibly slippery, and it is a clear and present danger to bicyclists (and walkers). The Class 4 separated bikeways probably won’t be too bad, since bicycles don’t grind up the leaves, and the city may even get around to sweeping the bikeways. But the regular Class 2 bike lanes will be horrible. Cars will drive over the leaves, and start the process. The city very rarely sweeps bike lanes. They may be partially cleared if residents have illegally piled leaves in the bike lane, and the claw picks up the leaf piles, but the very act of scraping up the piles leaves a thin leaf slime layer.

So, it is time of year to avoid bike lanes, until there is either maintenance or enough rain to wash away the leaf slime. Ride in the general purpose lane. Yes, you will get yelled at by asshole drivers whose car isolates them from the realities of roadways, but at least you won’t be slipping and falling on the leaf slime. Beware the leaves of December.

Central City Mobility: 5th St signals and rubber speed bumps

Dan Allison1 Comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #28.

Rubber Speed Bumps

The rubber speed bumps have finally been installed on most of the non-concrete turn wedges. These are marked by vertical delineators, as shown below. it is odd that most of these installations have both green K-71 vertical delineators in addition. These K-71s might have been installed temporarily, while waiting for the rubber speed bumps, and be removed later, or may be permanent. In some of the locations, the white vertical delineators have already been hit and bent by errant drivers. I have not visited all of the locations where the rubber speed bumps have been installed (or not), so don’t have any more information. More info about the rubber speed bumps is available from the vendor TreeTop Products.

photo of turn wedge at 16th St & P St, with green K-71 delineators and rubber speed bumps
turn wedge at 16th St & P St, with green K-71 delineators and rubber speed bumps
Read More »